There's a type inconsistency in the UpliftOnlyExample contract where blockTimestampDeposit
is declared as uint40
in one instance but assigned a uint32
value in another. This inconsistency could lead to maintenance issues, confusion and potential loss if block.number is higher number.
Standardize the type usage to uint40
throughout the contract:
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelyhood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.