John Adler

Subsumed by #650

Is this being tracked for implementation @evan-forbes?

If we're allowing the `WireMayForMessage` to be non-exhaustive w.r.t. `k`, then yes.

A couple notes: 1. Use "read" and "write" instead of "load" and "store" to be more consistent with other instructions. 2. Should this read/write a number of _words_ or a...

If we're going for a "avoid looking too far into the future" approach...then we could just remove output messages entirely?!

I will start working on this at the end of September if no one else has picked it up before then.

Hm, that's a good suggestion. Off the top of my head I don't see why that wouldn't work. If there are no objections from @SweeXordious who worked on this most...

Those checks should probably be required orthogonally to the issue at hand.

Having the option for both modes isn't bad IMO. Having the option for raw keys is a must, beyond that extra features are gravy on top.

I don't see any issue with additional safety checks to be able to fail gracefully if the user passed in "invalid" input. Especially something like this, where the panic might...