I've completed most of the BIP65 and BIP66 work and am about to spend a
couple of days testing it out.

It looks like BIP65 will be enforcing version 4 blocks shortly (if not
already).

http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver-ever.png

As these are soft forks the risk of not upgrading is lack of validation
of the additional consensus rules defined by these proposals, there
should be no invalid rejections.

e

On 12/11/2015 03:02 AM, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> I'm taking a short detour to update libbitcoin-consensus for the
> bitcoind 0.12.0 release, as well as libbitcoin and libbitcoin-blockchain
> for bip65 and bip66.
>
> This includes the removal of the consensus library OpenSSL dependency,
> replaced by the latest version of libsecp256k1. Libbitcoin native
> consensus checks already utilize libsecp256k1, as does wallet
> functionality, so this required synchronizing the dependency between
> libbitcoin and libbitcoin-consensus.
>
> The interface changes in this version of libsecp256k1 were fairly
> significant, but libbitcoin and libbitcoin-consensus public interfaces
> remain backward compatible. Since there is no versioned package for
> libsecp256k1, installers will build from libbitcoin/secp256k1/version4.
>
> The above work is complete in the bip65 feature branch, based on the
> head of libbitcoin/version2.
>
> I am presently incorporating BIP65 (OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY) into our
> native consensus checks. Libbitcoin has not been enforcing BIP66 (DER
> signatures), although signatures generated by libbitcoin are conforming.
> I'll be incorporating activation for both as part of this work.
>
> This and the trip to Hong Kong has set me back a bit, but I'm making
> good progress on the sync and network updates.
>
> e
>