Cleanup and streamline README formatting and version guidance

[ffranr]

This PR improves the structure and maintainability of the README by:

• Removing the daemon versions table, which is now redundant with the
  GitHub release notes. This reduces duplication and potential inconsistencies.
• Archiving the LiT/LND compatibility matrix in docs/compatibility.md
  to preserve historical data without requiring future updates in the README.
• Updating guidance to refer users to release notes for required min LND version and included daemon versions.
• Aligning table columns and reformatting lines to respect a soft max line length of 80 columns, improving readability and consistency.

[gemini-code-assist]

Summary of Changes

Hello @ffranr, I'm Gemini Code Assist¹! I'm currently reviewing this pull request and will post my feedback shortly. In the meantime, here's a summary to help you and other reviewers quickly get up to speed!

This pull request aims to improve the structure and maintainability of the project's documentation. It centralizes version compatibility guidance by directing users to GitHub release notes and a new archived document, thereby reducing duplication and enhancing the clarity of the main README.

Highlights

• Documentation Cleanup: Removed the redundant daemon versions table from the README, as this information is now maintained in GitHub release notes.
• Compatibility Matrix Archival: Archived the LiT/LND compatibility matrix into a new dedicated file, docs/compatibility.md, to preserve historical data without cluttering the main README.
• Updated Version Guidance: Revised the README to direct users to GitHub release notes for the most current information regarding minimum LND versions and included daemon versions.
• Readability Improvements: Reformatted various sections of the README to align table columns and adhere to a soft maximum line length of 80 columns, enhancing overall readability and consistency.

Using Gemini Code Assist

The full guide for Gemini Code Assist can be found on our documentation page, here are some quick tips.

Invoking Gemini

You can request assistance from Gemini at any point by creating a comment using either /gemini <command> or @gemini-code-assist <command>. Below is a summary of the supported commands on the current page.

Feature	Command	Description
Code Review	/gemini review	Performs a code review for the current pull request in its current state.
Pull Request Summary	/gemini summary	Provides a summary of the current pull request in its current state.
Comment	@gemini-code-assist	Responds in comments when explicitly tagged, both in pull request comments and review comments.
Help	/gemini help	Displays a list of available commands.

Customization

To customize Gemini Code Assist for GitHub experience, repository maintainers can create a configuration file and/or provide a custom code review style guide (such as PEP-8 for Python) by creating and adding files to a .gemini/ folder in the base of the repository. Detailed instructions can be found here.

Limitations & Feedback

Gemini Code Assist may make mistakes. Please leave feedback on any instances where its feedback is incorrect or counter productive. You can react with 👍 and 👎 on @gemini-code-assist comments. If you're interested in giving your feedback about your experience with Gemini Code Assist for Github and other Google products, sign up here.

You can also get AI-powered code generation, chat, as well as code reviews directly in the IDE at no cost with the Gemini Code Assist IDE Extension.

Footnotes

1. Review the Privacy Notices, Generative AI Prohibited Use Policy, Terms of Service, and learn how to configure Gemini Code Assist in GitHub here. Gemini can make mistakes, so double check it and use code with caution. ↩

[gemini-code-assist]

Code Review

This pull request effectively cleans up the README.md by moving version compatibility information to a separate file and referring to the release notes, which improves the document's structure and maintainability. The reformatting to an 80-column width also enhances readability. My review identifies a couple of instances where a link to a removed section was left behind, resulting in a broken link. I've provided suggestions to fix these.