HaRoLd

Hi Yes, I am aware. In the code I tested Echidna with I added a storage variable `hacked` which defaults to `false`. In the body of the `if` condition I...

for your reference, the code I used with echidna is: ```solidity pragma solidity 0.4.13; contract EcRecoverExample { bool hacked = false; function example(bytes stuff2hash, uint8 v, bytes32 r, bytes32 s)...

Yes

The implementation in #244 uses `TPM2_PolicyAuthorize` with `TPM2_PolicyPCR`, however for my use case I needed a direct PCR policy for Unseal. It would be good to get the PolicyAuthorize technique...

In the ethsnarks repo we have a stripped down verifier/prover which doesn't need to build most of libsnark/libff etc. Many thanks to the ZoKrates people for the `_zok` prover variant...

I agree, using call_user_func would be better, e.g. being able to do: `must('file_exists')`

Thanks for the useful extension, it's really helped me get on-top of storage access patterns to reduce unnecessary loads & stores. Although Solidity still adds some unnecessary ones in there...

> For me there seems no reason for user 1 to send a payment to user 2 and then not tell them that they did it. Its like just throwing...

Weird, does the same thing happen when using the `miximus` repository? Ah, it seems it does: https://github.com/barryWhiteHat/miximus/issues/6

The longer the value stays within the contract the more secure it is IMO, think of it as a single step WithdrawThenDeposit, so internal transfers can be made without revealing...