Better spongyCastle initialisation / decoupling

[ligi]

This is a follow-up for: #21

There are now multiple of these blocks in kethereum:

    init {
        Security.insertProviderAt(org.spongycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider(), 1)
    }

I would really like a cleaner way of initializing spongyCastle - and ideally a decoupling from sponygCastle from kethereum so it can also be used with bouncyCastle in a JVM context where the whole spongyCastle is not needed.

One Idea:

• create a kethereum-android module that has to be included when using kethereum in combination with Android
• inside this module there is a content-provider that initializes spongyCastle

@mirceanis what do you think?

[issueth]

This issue now has a bounty-address via issuETH.

Your bounty-address is 9eb20a6e6af0ae23d80692dedd0457f54ccc6f9f
Watch on rinkeby
Watch on main

[mirceanis]

The ContentProvider sounds like a good idea to try. Firebase does the init that way and I remember they had a few problems in the beginning.
A successful completion of this would have to account for that and avoid it.

A link to start one off: https://firebase.googleblog.com/2016/12/how-does-firebase-initialize-on-android.html

[ligi]

I also do this in WallETH to decouple flavors like this: https://github.com/walleth/walleth/blob/master/app/src/withGeth/java/org/walleth/geth/GethInitContentProvider.kt

[ligi]

Thinking a bit longer about this: in the end this does not need to be that clean as it will get obsolete with #1 anyway ..-)
A nice small modular Kotlin crypto lib replacing *castle would be so great!

[ligi]

Was recently talking to @cketti recently and I think he is correct that the best way is not to use the providers at all but the lower bouncycastle API - so we do not need the split spongy/bouncy at all. This way we also can avoid the multiple insertProvider calls.
Perhaps when doing so we can also hide bouncycastle behind some crypto-interface so we can replace it with a pure Kotlin implementation at a later point.

[mirceanis]

what do you mean by lower bouncycastle API ?

[ligi]

you can directly use the functions without going through providers. So you are sure you do not run into the problem of using varying platform implementations. Will cc you once I make the PR for it