Since libbitcoin is an obelisk dependency, I can answer my own question
with: yes.

And add, that it would be nice to support testnet/mainnet at runtime with
obelisk as well.


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM, Thomas Hartman
<thomas@???>wrote:

> That being said, testnet obelisk servers are:
>
> https://wiki.unsystem.net/index.php/Obelisk/Servers
>
> I suppose to run obelisk as testnet is a compile time decision as well,
> right?
>
>
> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Thomas Hartman <thomas@???
> > wrote:
>
>> Feature request at
>>
>> https://github.com/spesmilo/sx/issues/72
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM, Thomas Hartman <
>> thomas@???> wrote:
>>
>>> I suppose I would go with
>>>
>>> sx --network=testnet3
>>>
>>> Backwards compaible, with mainnet the default.
>>>
>>> I would target getting sx working with testnet without recompiling,
>>> before targetting sx for altcoins. I think it encompasses a lot of the same
>>> issues, but more tractably.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Eric Voskuil <eric@???> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The testnet option is compiled into libbitcoin, an sx dependency. It
>>>> would be nice for this to instead be configurable.
>>>>
>>>> e
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On May 14, 2014, at 7:28 AM, Thomas Hartman <thomas@???>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I suppose
>>>>
>>>> sx --currency=litecoin
>>>>
>>>> with bitcoin default might work. This would be backwards compatible.
>>>>
>>>> That being said, to me, this is only a really attractive option if all
>>>> the currency-specific code can be specified in an config file that is read
>>>> at compile time.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose this would be things like the genesis block, and scrypt vs
>>>> sha.
>>>>
>>>> Perhaps a similar mechanism could also be used to control whether
>>>> testnet or mainnet is specified.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe there is a way to distinguish testnet/mainnet with sx already but
>>>> I couldn't figure it out.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 6:26 AM, mlmikael <mlmikael@???>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> /LICENSE , I missed the meaning of rows 31-34 from being stuck at rows
>>>>> 7, 17, 19 and lost among the OpenSSL exception etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I'd have read the word "lesser" on /README row 2 first it I should
>>>>> have had the context not to miss that.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> LGPL for Debian devs, ok - it's like, Debian prefers LGPL packages for
>>>>> some reasons so therefore consider relicense for everyone?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok very well, now to practical priorities. Just in case you have any
>>>>> new thoughts on Litecoin feel free to tell.
>>>>>
>>>>> How different do you feel they are with regard to console use, will
>>>>> LibBitcoin operations for Litecoin be done using "sx -l" or by a new "lx"?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2014-05-13 23:04, Amir Taaki wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> yep, let me know where I can add this for clarity. Where did you look
>>>>>> first? The README?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BTW I might change the license to vanilla LGPL for Debian devs, but
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> before discussing with others here first. Thanks for all your input.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>>>>> Libbitcoin@???
>>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Libbitcoin mailing list
>>>> Libbitcoin@???
>>>> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>