Update Fair Minting Spec

[warrenpuffett]

After analyzing the code as part of updating this doc I found a few spots that might have some problems. I've written them down in this issue: CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core#2601

Additionally I think that we are perhaps missing some test cases. I wrote down all the cases I could think of in an issue here: CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core#2602
I checked off the ones that I know for sure already exists. The vectors are pretty easy to know what they are doing but it's very difficult to understand what the scenario tests do. So many more of the test cases might already be "checked off".

I also came up with a list of questions that I think would be great if we could discuss them here on this PR. Thanks!

• Should Fairminter.burn_payment default to True?
• Should Fariminter.premint_quantity hard cap checks be > instead of >=?
• Should Fairminter.soft_cap be allowed to equal Fairminter.hard_cap?

[ouziel-slama]

@warrenpuffett @adamkrellenstein sorry I totally missed thisPR!!

LGTM than you very much!

• Should Fairminter.burn_payment default to True?

IMO no but it's a political decision :-)

• Should Fariminter.premint_quantity hard cap checks be > instead of >=?
• Should Fairminter.soft_cap be allowed to equal Fairminter.hard_cap?

hum.. indeed there is no good reason to prohibit that premint_quantity or soft_cap is equal to hard_cap.
However, it is a protocol change that requires caution and not urgency. I opened an issue: CounterpartyXCP/counterparty-core#2686

[ouziel-slama]

Just added a little note:

asset and asset_parent must respect the named asset format