I don't understand this code so I cannot change it. It is up to CfB and BCNext to decide if and when this should be fixed.
Only crypto audit will tell if it's a bug or not. Right now there is another way to fix unverifable signatures in Crypto.sign(). We can't use BloodyRookie's fix without a formal proof that this won't break Curve25519 security. Actually, if the fix gets rid of unverifable signatures completely then we shouldn't use it. It's a normal situation that sometimes we have to recompute signatures generated with EC-KCDSA.
But you DO understand, that right now, when the code is refactored, one simply needs to replace Curve25519.class.
People that will do that will ONLY benefit, from doing so (no more "generated incorrect block" messages == profit).
And verify WILL work on such blocks...