Been reading the comments. 2 channels would make sense when, for example: Org 1-5 keep the same data. They will see chain code 1, and ledger 1. Let's say servers. Majority orgs approve, meaning 3

Reminder: Hyperledger Fabric Documentation Workgroup call - Western hemisphere When: Friday, 7 May 2021, 11:00am to 12:00pm, (GMT-04:00) America/New

Hi Nikos, Remember that a channel basically represents a single ledger. So if you only need a single ledger you only need a single channel. Regarding your comment “use the most (if not

Really thank you all. So the paragraph Endorsement Policy here is wrong (I have seen it to other links too)? As far as for the privacy, I understand that in a single channel network is there is no way

Endorsements are fundamentally based on the number of endorsing organizations, not the number of endorsing peers, since ultimately you want to ensure that organizations have executed and signed off on

Hi NIkos, Endorsement policies are based on organizations only, not the number of peers. Once an organization is added to the endorsement policy, they only need to deploy one peer to endorse a

Also, I am a bit confused with this "Endorsement policy is based on the number of endorsing peers from unique organizations, not the total number peers. For example if you have 10 orgs with 3 peers

Hi, I am using cross-chaincode to take advantage of the fact that I can store data in isolation in different world states. However, I am not clear whether storing in different world states offers

Sorry, I used SC for smart-contract. So "A majority of peers in the channel must endorse transactions of a specific type" means that if one of M endorser peers endorse the

Endorsement policy is based on the number of endorsing peers from unique organizations, not the total number peers. For example if you have 10 orgs with 3 peers each, and you need a majority to

I am thinking of building an BC network with N organization in one common channel. Each organization would have M peers. The transaction endorsement policy will be based in a number P of

Thanks for all replies. So, we are saying that, ED register via REST. These ED can be same or different orgs. ED send messages via REST with their tokens. I am using JWT. Any better option? This

Hi, I'm working on the solution proposed, now I'm using a cli peer to do my channel update operations, before doing that I set the following variables in the peer

Hi Nikos, Yes, that’s one common approach we’ve seen. The EDs don’t have to belong to the same organization, they could send their data to different aggregators if desired based on some

We have chosen not to add version tags to the modules because they tend to evolve compatibly and are mostly disconnected from the fabric releases. For example, if you pull any version of

Thanks Dave. No CouchDB in the picture here - as you guessed; and SQLite/BDB in Oracle Blockchain Platform behaves the same way as GoLevelDB does when it comes to commits. So, I suppose we

The only time we've seen something like this was back when the community CouchDB image had a bad configuration setting: delayed_commits = true With that configuration, it was possible for CouchDB to

Hi all. I have an HLF network which has ended up in a situation where the stateDB of two virtually identical peers (same channel, same chaincode) diverged; digging into it, the problem is that a txn

The only mention of the "private data store" aka "private writeset storage" is this sentence: "Upon validation/commit, the private data is moved to their copy of the private state database and private

Yes, that is it. You got it!