How to handle libsecp256k1 ABI non-guarantees of stability about python-bitcointx HOT 5 CLOSED

The distro-installed version of libsecp is unlikely to have experimental modules enabled, so anyone who would want to use schnorr sigs will need to compile themselves anyway (until the module becomes non-experimental, at least), so I'm inclining towards combining the options 2 and 3.

from python-bitcointx.

The safest is the option 4, of course. But there's no timeline when such stabilization would happen, AFAIK.

from python-bitcointx.

We could make enabling the scnorr signature support explicit with some function, like enable_experimental_schnorrsig_support(). Calling that function will be the indication that the caller is aware of the issue and is certain that the compatible version of the library will be loaded (kinda mirroring the libsecp 'experimental modules' concept)

from python-bitcointx.

1. is too heavy imo; and I would say that anyone playing with this lib can compile for themselves so 2. seems pretty reasonable (update README to state what is the minimal version that one needs); 3. works already so why changing it and to 4. I'm also waiting for release but cannot find any info on timeline - meh

from python-bitcointx.

The chosen path is:

• stating the 'recommended' commit in README.md (this change is already in master)
• experimental modules must be enabled explicitly with allow_secp256k1_experimental_modules() or PYTHON_BITCOINTX_ALLOW_LIBSECP256K1_EXPERIMENTAL_MODULES_USE=1 environment variable (this change is in taproot branch)

from python-bitcointx.