I don't know yet what is the specific impact to us if the proposal is
deployed, but...

Obelisk builds against libbitcoin/version1 which has a secp256k1
dependency *and* an OpenSSL dependency. I believe the OpenSSL
dependency in libbitcoin/version1 exists only for API compat and
validation of the secp256k1-based code against the previous
OpenSSL-based implementation (i.e. in tests), and for OpenSSL's BIGNUM
support. I don't believe that OpenSSL is used for signing (or any
crypto) in version1.

libbitcoin/version2 does not use OpenSSL for anything, although there
is a large regression test suite that is based on generated data from
our old OpenSSL-based implementation. Libbitcoin-server is based on
libbitcoin/version2.

In any case, both Obelisk (unless the build is very old) and
libbitcoin-server should be affected similarly.

genjix did review the proposal and responded to gmaxwell that he saw
no problems with proposal itself, but presumably we have an impact
from it.

e

On 01/22/2015 02:39 PM, Noel Maersk wrote:
> As you know, 0.10 is around the corner, and I was idly wondering
> about libbitcoin's compatibility with that. Chances are a
> noticeable portion of the network will be switching to 0.10.
>
> gmaxwell has also asked on #darkwallet@freenode:
>
>> < gmaxwell> genjix: Care to review
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net/msg06744.html
>>
>>
< gmaxwell> ?
>
> I didn't review it myself yet, hence asking.
>
> The proposal is "to make non-DER signatures illegal (they've been
> non-standard since v0.8.0)".
>
> We're not using OpenSSL in the new libbitcoin-server. However,
> what about Obelisk, older libbitcoin versions, and code that relies
> on that?
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Libbitcoin mailing
> list Libbitcoin@???
> https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libbitcoin
>