Inadequate use of assert
The usage of `require` vs `assert` has always been a matter of discussion because of the fine lines distinguishing these transaction-terminating expressions.\\nHowever, the usage of the `assert` syntax in this case is not the most appropriate.\\nBorrowing the explanation from the latest solidity docs (v. https://solidity.readthedocs.io/en/latest/control-structures.html#id4) :\\n```\\nThe assert function should only be used to test for internal errors, and to check invariants. \\n```\\n\\nSince assert-style exceptions (using the `0xfe` opcode) consume all gas available to the call and require-style ones (using the `0xfd` opcode) do not since the Metropolis release when the `REVERT` instruction was added, the usage of `require` in the lines depicted in the examples section would only result in gas savings and the same security assumptions.\\nIn this case, even though the calls are being made to external contracts the supposedly abide to a predefined specification, this is by no means an invariant of the presented system since the component is external to the built system and its integrity cannot be formally verified.\\n```\\nassert(\\_to[i].send(\\_value[i]));\\n```\\n\\n```\\nassert(msg.sender.send(remainingValue));\\n```\\n\\n```\\nassert(token.transferFrom(msg.sender, \\_to[i], \\_value[i]) == true);\\n```\\n
Exchange the `assert` statements for `require` ones.
```\\nThe assert function should only be used to test for internal errors, and to check invariants. \\n```\\n