On Thu, Jan 22, 2015 at 06:04:29PM -0800, William Swanson wrote:
> ...
>
> 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.

Ah, right.

> 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.

Small reminder: libbitcoin's using a forked version (mainly for MSVS
build integration), so we're lagging behind by a few days (I guess as
often as Eric has patience to update).

P.S. bitcoind'll be using some sort of release (tagged?) of
libsecp256k1, right?.. Couldn't find this on [bitcoin-development], but
I assume it will.