I hope this does not break any of your setups. In the unlikely case that it does, you're probably better off with using above alternatives. If you have concerns, please let me know.
On Sunday, January 5, 2020 at 4:09:32 PM UTC, Jonas Nick wrote: > > bitcoinj optionally allows using the JNI bindings of libsecp256k1 [0] for > signature operations. > > *One month from now the libsecp256k1 project will remove the Java Native* > *Interface from the master branch.* > > The reason for this is that the JNI bindings would require way more work to > remain useful to Java developers but the maintainers and regular > contributors of > libsecp are not very familiar with Java. There are properly maintained (but > unvetted) alternatives such as > https://github.com/ACINQ/secp256k1/tree/jni-embed/src/java > https://github.com/bitcoin-s/bitcoin-s/tree/master/secp256k1jni > > You can find the discussions about this issue at > https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/682 > > [0] https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1 > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "bitcoinj" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoinj/0dc0fabe-7663-457f-9212-acec03671272%40googlegroups.com.
