This is the correct behavior. There is only space for a single event. For examplehttps://github.com/hyperledger/fabric-chaincode-go/blob/2d8992/shim/stub.go#L26 We can see the implementation

Is there anyway to increase the wait time on a chaincode instantiation? The default seems to be about 10 minutes but I have a peer with low bandwidth and the docker image download combined with the

Reminder: Hyperledger Fabric Documentation Workgroup call - Eastern hemisphere When: Friday, 20 March 2020, 6:00am to 7:00am, (GMT+00:00) Europe/London Where:https://zoom.us/j/6223336701 View

Hi All, I'm trying to send multiple events from my Go chaincode using SetEvent(). I use NodeJS' registerChaincodeEvent() to subscribe events. I can receive an event from chaincode correctly if I emit

Hey guys, I'm having trouble getting the latest config block from the orderer so I can send it to a joining orderer that was added to the system-channel. I'm using the getChannelConfigFromOrderer()

dear Fabric ApplicationDeveloper, the next FabricApplication Developer community call is scheduled for this ThursdayMar 5th @ 4pm UTC (currently 4pm UK time, 12noon ET (-4 hrs), 9am PT(-7hrs)) -

Trying to instantiate chaincode, and due to PANIC error on PEER0, and peer crashes. Impossible to instantiate chaincode, because PEER0 crashes doing the process. Fabric 1.4.3 version: 1 Oderer + 1

The same panic error occur when I do, in sequence: 1) peer channel create 2) peer channel join 3) peer channel update , using AnchorPeer.block I attach here the entire log of CLI, PEER0 and ORDERER,

Each peer logs its block commit hash every block at INFO level. The block commit hash is a hash over all valid transactions that are written to state database. So you can compare block commit hashes

I saw that if the OS is malicious then a fork may happen by sending different peers different blocks. Is that detectable? If a client made a query to the world state would that be subject to any

I was just researching what happens when some orderers were taken over by an attacker. If say I have 5 ordering nodes, and 3 are taken over, is there a way to detect which 3 are malicious. I was

Hyperledger Fabric Documentation Workgroup call - Western hemisphere When: Friday, 13 March 2020 4:00pm to 5:00pm (GMT+00:00)

Well, if you don't define bootstrap peersand you have no anchor peers then the conditions to establish membershipbetween peers are not met, thus peers will not disseminate blocks to eachother. This

Reminder: Hyperledger Fabric Documentation Workgroup call - Western hemisphere When: Friday, 13 March 2020, 4:00pm to 5:00pm, (GMT+00:00) Europe/London Where:https://zoom.us/j/6223336701 View

I thought gossip was always used? What is the alternative? Trevor From: "Yacov Manevich" <YACOVM@...> Sent: 13 March 2020 10:49 To: trevor@... Cc: fabric@... Subject: RE: [Hyperledger Fabric]

An org? Sure. A peer? Well maybe, if you don't useany bootstrap peers or anchor peers so gossip isn't used. From: "Trevor Lee Oakley"<trevor@...> To: "Yacov Manevich"<YACOVM@...> Cc:

It is true that you'll see higher throughput if you load balance endorsement requests across multiple peers. You likely want multiple peers per org anyways for HA purpose. I suspect that error message

I just saw a few research papers - seems they can be constructed. But can an org handle thousands of channels? From: "Yacov Manevich" <YACOVM@...> Sent: 13 March 2020 10:38 To:

They do not exist, but who knows? maybein the future they will. From: "Trevor Lee Oakley"<trevor@...> To: "Yacov" <yacovm@...> Cc: <fabric@...> Date: 03/13/2020 04:34

local collections would be nice to use but the business level need to is to completely hide the txn data (ie even that it exists to other members). I did not know anonymous endorsements were viable.