How were you submitting this transaction?

Security Guideline development based on input from consultant report and Fabric Community. Develop path forward on writing, reviewing, and issuing.

Hello, does anybody have topics for the contributor meeting tomorrow? If there are no topics, I'll send out a cancel notice... Hyperledger Fabric Contributor Meeting When: Every other Wednesday 9am

Private Chaincode Lab When: Tuesday, 11 May 2021 8:00am to 9:00am (GMT-07:00) America/Los

Perfect. I think I am ok. To summarize (for future reference). Endorsement policies are based on organizations only. So you can set either the majority of N orgs to endorse or a part of them (e.g 3 of

Thanks Dave, What I get from Matt is he was "suggesting we get in front of any potential future incompatibility by creating release branches in advance" I also agree that "doing it for each LTS

Hello Team, I am getting this error while creating a channel when I am using docker version "2.3.0" Error: got unexpected status: BAD_REQUEST -- consensus metadata update for channel creation is

In the early days we created release branches in every repository. More recently we haven't been creating release branches unless there was some incompatibility or fixes across releases that required

You can keep the chaincode endorsement policy as majority of orgs ( the default example at https://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-samples/blob/main/test-network/configtx/configtx.yaml#L187-L189 ) so

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

Hi Matt, Thanks so much for your clarification. And I would like to follow your last point that can we create a r2 branch for it first?

Nice as described in the docs. If we are talking about peers then "AND('A.peer0', 'A.peer1', 'A.peer2')". Thus, the org A participate with 3 peers in the endorsement but his participation

> Can I set thatI need endorsement from the 3 nodes (because I paranoid and I would liketo avoid the case that a peer is compromised ) Yes: "AND('A.member','A.member', 'A.member')" > Also, in thesame

Hi Chris, Thanks for the advice, the certs are correct. I will explain better the situation: Currently I have 2 channels, 3 orderers with the TLS certs expired. the system channel an application

Thank you for the answers you are really fast and helpful. Although I solved some issues I am a bit confused. If endorsement policies are based on organizations only, not the number of peers, what

One clarification – this works only when both chaincodes are resident on the same peer, which means you would need an organization and at least one peer that belongs to both channels. Here’s an

Mahwish, You can do cross-channel queries: e.g., chaincode1 invokes chancode2’s query function for some data from channel 2 as part of its business logic, which ultimately creates a RWset as

Hi Mattia, You have a cert mismatch. Make sure to double check where you placed the newly created certs and make sure they match. Chris

Hi Chris, I updated one orderer TLS certs in the system channel but it's not included in the raft consensus. If i try to fecth the channel confing block from the updated orderer i get SERVICE

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