Remove libsecp from validation. about bitcoinclassic

[jtoomim]

Disagree strongly. Libsecp256k1 is one of the purest technical improvements that has been made in Bitcoin in ages.

[jtoomim]

In the absence of a consider.it vote supporting this issue, I am going to close it. If you can show me a vote in support of this being an issue, I will reopen it.

Note: This bears resemblance to a trolling attempt, so I will not be wasting time on it. I recommend that other users evaluate submissions from @circeng and from @Cointrader (#29 (comment)) with caution.

[ciphera]

This should probably be considered if your hard fork goes through and the major developers of this lib (maxwell and wuille) quits Bitcoin. Leaving it unmaintained would be insecure, and a better option would be to run OpenSSL again. Unless you find someone else who is qualified to maintain it of course.

[Xekyo]

Libsecp256k1 has an extensive test coverage, much greater than OpenSSL’s. I wouldn’t expect any issues with its maintenance. To quote andytoshi’s review:

libsecp256k1's code is simpler and cleaner; it is designed specifically for ECDSA, so it is a much much smaller codebase (less room for error and reviewers can look more closely at the specific ECDSA code); its test coverage is more thorough. The code is also written in a modular way with the explicit goal of being easy to analyze.