[Review] Balance calculation when operators will be removed

[Mohsen-T]

• Reviewed all the code and test scripts related to the SSVOperators.remoteOperator() function
• Confidently affirm that there are no errors or logical inconsistencies in the code
• Could you please clarify the rationale for using the Operator's whitelisted variable independently, as opposed to utilizing the SSVStorage's StorageData structure's operatorsWhitelist mapping variable?
• Ticket: Review/fix balance calculations when removing operators

[mtabasco]

@Mohsen-T please create tests for:
with a cluster with 4 operators:

• remove an operator, progress blocks and confirm:

  • the cluster balance is reduced taking into account only 3 operators since the block where the operator was removed.
  • try to register a new validator in the new cluster passing the same operator ids, including the removed one (I think we already have this test in place)
  • try to removeValidator and check the operator removed is skipped for the updates.
  • same with liquidate, try with the same list of operator Ids and check the removed operator is not taken into account.
  • same with reactivate and withdraw

• SSVNetworkViews

  • Check if there are cluster balance calculations performed on-the-fly and refactor to use cluster/operator libraries.