(fix): Follow Up to 310 - Adding more details to failed trustless test

[whizzzkid]

Follow up to #310.

In this PR:

• Adding failed to tests to the debug messages.

[lidel]

nit: mind renaming "Trustless" to “Block/CAR” and link to end user docs at https://docs.ipfs.tech/reference/http/gateway/#trustless-verifiable-retrieval instead of gateway specs? 🙏

[whizzzkid]

@lidel fixed

This may move the spacing in #313

[SgtPooki]

#trustless-verifiable-retrieval

I prefer "trustless" as that's how we're advertising it to customers, but block/car is direct and a link to the docs should help anyone understand if they want to know more

[lidel]

s/customers/users/ :))

yeah, this should be good enough until we clean up naming across docs and specs.

Digression:

I've heard some constructive feedback that "Trustless" is too vague, and confusing:
while you can verify blocks, you still "Trust" gateway with your privacy (gateway can track what CIDs you requested).

"Block/CAR" is very clear, but too technical. I wonder if "verifiable" is a better term overall?
I'd like us to unify this across docs and specs at some point, but naming is not my strong suit. :)