I think you should do it. For the people not comfortable, we can add the
code using ifdef blocks (#ifdef LIBCONSENSUS) which is enabled using
configure switches.
Possibly we could even run code through both native and libconsensus for
extra-safety (as a future option).

On 01/25/2015 02:18 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
> It wouldn't be a big chunk of the bitcoin implementation but a minimal
> library extracted from the satoshi implementation.
> As said libconsensus will also remove openSSL as dependency by using
> libsecp256 for signature checking (Bitcoin core already uses it for
> signing, but signing is out of libbitcoin, as said right now only
> verifies scripts [checking their signatures too]).
> But I can undesrtand that having get rid of OpenSSL already, this may
> feel like a step back.
> You can also just move your strict DER signature code from your
> standardness validation to the consensus validation.
> If you decided to use libconsensus later (once it uses libsecp256k1
> instead of OpenSSL) I believe you would want to do so by
> reimplementing
>
> bool script_type::run(const transaction_type& parent_tx, uint32_t input_index)
>
> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/97b668252340b82f8f19e724783c1df5349d5416/src/script.cpp#L224
> )
>
> and calling
>
> int bitcoinconsensus_verify_script(const unsigned char *scriptPubKey,
> unsigned int scriptPubKeyLen,
> const unsigned char *txTo , unsigned int txToLen,
> unsigned int nIn, unsigned int flags, bitcoinconsensus_error* err);
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/bitcoinconsensus.h#L55
>
> From there.
> Having many language agnostic test vector is great but you can never
> test all possible cases as libsecp256k1 developers very well know.
> I disagree that libconsensus is against decentralization. Just like a
> wide use of libsecp256k1 is not against decentralization.
> Consensus failures don't increase decentralization in any way that I'm aware of.
> You keep control of which checks you do to the scripts using flags
> (for example, for softforks like the one being considered).
> You week full control on anything policy, network, wallet or
> concurrency related: of anything non-consensus related.
> libconsensus does and will only contain consensus validations and it
> should be as light as possible (yet another reason to get rid of its
> current OpenSSL dependency).
> For example, you want to allow transactions with more than one output
> with OP_RETURN with any amount of data in them?
> That's fine, because that's one standard policy check that Bitcoin
> Core does but libconsensus doesn't.
> Currently there are many more policy validations than consensus
> validations in Bitcoin Core and users of libconsensus will never get
> any of that.
> Besides, once finished libconsensus is expected to be very stable,
> only changing when consensus rules change (ie softforks or hardforks).
>
> If you still want to keep reimplementing all consensus validations
> yourselves I would at least suggest to use libconsensus for testing
> your script interpreter implementation and your signatures checks.
> Bringing back OpenSSL via libconsus (thus temporarily) only for some
> tests that are optional at build time seems something very reasonable.
> When libconsensus script interpreter and libbitcoin's don't produce
> exactly the same results for the same inputs...something is probably
> wrong (a bug in one of them is a certainty in that case).
>
> Anyway, If you're not interested in libconsensus at this point, I
> don't want to be a distraction you from the reimplementing the
> softfork proposal (which apparently in libbitcoin's case will just
> mean some code from a standard script check to the consensus script
> check) which is was this thread was about.
>
> On Sat, Jan 24, 2015 at 12:05 AM, Eric Voskuil <eric@???> wrote:
>> Hi Jorje,
>>
>> There are several potential problems with libbitcoin taking a dependency
>> on a big chunk of the Satoshi implementation. However the most
>> straightforward to address is the OpenSSL dependency:
>>
>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/libbitcoinconsensus.pc.in#L11
>>
>> After spending months getting OpenSSL out of libbitcoin I couldn't
>> imagine bringing it back.
>>
>> We do use bitcoin/libsep256k1, which will eventually help in consensus
>> on crypto. And that compact C lib has recently removed all dependencies
>> (GMP is now optional and OpenSSL is only used for regression testing).
>>
>> I think it makes a lot more sense to verify consensus in the same way
>> libsecp256k1 is verified, through a comprehensive test matrix. We used
>> to perform testing against OpenSSL directly, now we have a large matrix
>> of test vectors that we generated from OpenSSL:
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/test/script_number.hpp
>>
>> Community-published and verified test vectors are reusable regardless of
>> language or implementation. As an example, our implementation for script
>> is here:
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/test/script.hpp#L33
>>
>> In fact we tend to use vectors from public sources for just this reason,
>> for example:
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/blob/master/test/ec_keys.cpp#L55
>>
>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-explorer/blob/master/test/commands/hd-private.cpp
>>
>> The best way to ensure consensus is for everyone to use the same
>> implementation. However this is ultimately at odds with the higher
>> objective of decentralization.
>>
>> e
>>
>> On 01/23/2015 12:50 PM, Jorge Timón wrote:
>>> If libbitcoin doesn't produce non-standard signatures it cannot create
>>> a fork as William says.
>>> The risk is that libbitcoin nodes get fork because they think that an
>>> invalid signature is valid.
>>> By using libconsensus (which is a dynamic library that 0.10 produces)
>>> you can avoid any danger with regard to these changes completely.
>>> Currently libconsensus only exposes a C function to verify a script in
>>> a transaction:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/script/bitcoinconsensus.h#L55
>>>
>>> C was chosen so that it's easier to call from other languages like python.
>>> The rest of the consensus checks will have to keep being done by libbitcoin.
>>> Hopefully by 0.11 libconsensus will be able to check a full
>>> transaction, although the interface for the relevant utxo subset is
>>> not clear (I'm working on those code movements with so if you have
>>> suggestions on what parameters Consensus::CheckTxInputs() should take
>>> I would love to hear them).
>>> But not being able to fork due to signature or script checks is
>>> already a huge deal IMO.
>>> It is a small dependency (and will be smaller when libsecp256k1 is
>>> more mature and bitcoin core drops SSL for signature checking) and it
>>> is specially easy to use by C or C++ alternative implementations like
>>> libbitcoin.
>>>
>>> I can't find the where you check scripts in libbitcoin, only where you
>>> check signatures:
>>> https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=check_signature
>>> But it seems it's only used on the tests so maybe your VerifyScript()
>>> is in some other project that consumes libbitcoin?
>>>
>>> Anyway, I know it's not the only solution, but I highly recommend
>>> libconsensus as a dependency for any bitcoin alternative
>>> implementation that can afford to use it (like it's clearly the case
>>> for any implementation that already uses C or C++).
>>>
>>> I will be glad to help with this if you want to do it but I don't know
>>> libbitcoin's code.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 3:04 AM, William Swanson <swansontec@???> wrote:
>>>> Libbitcoin will never produce non-standard signatures, so there is no
>>>> chance of us *creating* a fork.
>>>>
>>>> Besides this, there aren't any mining implementations running on top
>>>> of libbitcoin, so our consensus rules can't possibly lead to bad
>>>> blocks. The flip side is that we are at risk of being locked out if we
>>>> somehow reject a block that the rest of the network thinks is valid.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know if libsecp256k1 accepts non-standard signatures or not.
>>>> If libsecp256k1 rejects non-standard signatures, then we are already
>>>> in danger. If somebody mines a block with one of these signatures,
>>>> libbitcoin will reject the block and be unable to continue, even
>>>> though the rest of the network is fine. Hopefully this isn't the case.
>>>>
>>>> If libsecp256k1 is willing to accept non-strict signatures, then we
>>>> are fine in any case. If the network accepts this rule and becomes
>>>> more strict than us, we certainly won't disagree with any mined
>>>> blocks. This would need to be tightened up if we were to ever try
>>>> mining on top of libbitcoin, though.
>>>>
>>>> -William
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 2:39 PM, Noel Maersk <veox@???> 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
>