00:18 <stellar-slack> <jed> https://www.stellar.org/laboratory/ supports all the operation types in the transaction builder now

06:24 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> Hello, I have a problem when I create an account, I can't figure what's going on. I get an error message "TypeError: undefined is not a function"

06:24 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> I have upgraded stellar-sdk to 5.0

06:24 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> I created a gist : https://gist.github.com/Proxiweb/3f6de39e80264c7aa12e#file-transaction-js

06:31 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> thanks for your help !

06:46 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> @regisg27: the one thing I think I see is that your example uses the depricated .address * Keypair.address (replaced by Keypair.accountId) in sdk v0.4.0

06:50 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> Nope, issueurStellarKeys.address is just a string ...

06:51 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> you mean it becomes a string it starts from issueurStellarKeys that is a keypair object

06:52 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> do you have a line number for the typeError: undefined....

06:54 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> are you running from a browser or from command line with node.js?

06:55 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> no, issueurStellarKeys is just a json Object storing seed & address 's strings

06:55 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> ok

06:56 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> and we don't seem to see all the code so....

06:57 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> it’s not just complaining about console.log?

07:00 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> @dzham thanks, I've just made a test, console.log works fine

07:09 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> @sacarlson: I've updated the code to show all lines except secret seed.

07:20 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> I've created a new account via https://stellar.github.io/network-explorer/ and got funds from friendbot

07:21 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> then I created a new folder, put the same gist code in a file with the new account address & seed

07:22 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> npm install stellar-sdk

07:23 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> babel-node to start the script

07:23 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> => same result : TypeError: undefined is not a function

07:36 <stellar-slack1> <jed> Does it give you a line number?

07:42 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> I too seem to have run into a problem with V0.4.0 in TypeError: (intermediate value).addOperation(...).addSigner is not a function; when I changed it from .addSigner(key) to .sign(key) it also fails

07:47 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> ah I found the difference now

07:48 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> new working version looks like this now

07:54 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> @regisg27: I’m getting a tx_bad_seq on the transaction

07:59 <stellar-slack1> <sacarlson> my new expermental wallet that seems to work with sdk v0.4.0 is now published on my github and seen here http://sacarlson.github.io/transaction_toolsv0.4.0.html

07:59 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> w/ the 0.4.0 sdk, I get `[TypeError: keyPair.address is not a function]`

08:00 <stellar-slack1> <irisli> Keypair.address got replaced by Keypair.accountId

08:01 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> yup, that’s in his own code though

08:01 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> @regisg27: ` console.log(`compte ${keyPair.accountId()} créé`);`<— change to this, and make sure you have the latest sdk

08:02 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> Oh, well, slack formatting *grumble*

08:02 <stellar-slack1> <irisli> Maybe you could use triple ticks

08:03 <stellar-slack1> <dzham> \o/

08:15 <stellar-slack1> <regisg27> Ok, the error wasn't throw in the "catch" but was thrown by keyPair.address() line 35 I forgot to change. Thanks a lot.

09:14 <stellar-slack1> <scott> Just an FYI: I found a bug in pathfinding on horizon yesterday… the source_amount calculation is busted. I’ll look into fixing it today.

09:49 <stellar-slack1> <powderfan> Is this referring to https://github.com/stellar/horizon/issues/240 ?

09:51 <stellar-slack1> <scott> no, https://github.com/stellar/horizon/issues/239, but I’ll look into that as well

10:58 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> I have a question about the SCP. Stellar sacrifices liveness to gain safety. What if there is a system with two quorum slices [1, 2, 3, 4, 5] and [4, 5, 6, 7, 8]. Will the failure of 4 and 5 give the same result as the failure of 7 and 8? Failure of 4 and 5 breaks the intersection, so are these two slices "aware" that 4 and 5 are the intersection? @jed @dm

11:26 <stellar-slack1> <lab> IMHO they(1-8) are in the same quorum.

11:28 <stellar-slack1> <lab> so if 4/5 is down, either part can't get consensus because larger half disagree from each node's point of view.

11:28 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> ah, so because 4 and 5 intersect, all the nodes inspect the complete quorum

11:29 <stellar-slack1> <lab> yes, quorum slice is open and quorum is closed graph

11:32 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> So with the correct intersections the quorum will eventually span the complete network. In terms of network efficiency, wont that degrade the overall speed?

11:32 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> *of example 100 nodes

11:36 <stellar-slack1> <lab> good question i think we need more professional answer.

11:39 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> Thanks for your time!

11:39 <stellar-slack1> <lab> oh, it's said in Fig7

11:40 <stellar-slack1> <lab> 4/5 failure means 2 networks without intersection.

11:41 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> yeah, but stellar favors safety over liveness, so you should think it grinds to a halt then, or maybe this is the edge case

11:44 <stellar-slack1> <lab> i think it's a character of real p2p network.

11:45 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> yeah, sounds logical. So the solution is to choose the intersection wise enough

11:45 <stellar-slack1> <lab> not aware of completed disconnectivity(network split)

11:45 <stellar-slack1> <lab> both internet and bitcoin cannot avoid split from it.

11:48 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> So Stellar can fork than?

11:49 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> It happened, but maybe changed with the new SCP

11:49 <stellar-slack1> <lab> it's called split not fork. :)

11:50 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> Ah, sorry for my terminology

11:50 <stellar-slack1> <lab> image GFW complete cut china and others

11:52 <stellar-slack1> <lab> there will be two different longest chains

11:52 <stellar-slack1> <lab> in PoW network. will you call it fork?

11:53 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> I guess I've heard that term quite a lot for Bitcoin

11:56 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> But what would be the behavior of stellar when node 4 and 5 are up again and the networks collide, will the longest chain be chosen?

12:07 <stellar-slack1> <lab> halt i guess

12:11 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> because there is no safety, sounds logical

12:12 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> thanks for the answers @lab

12:13 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> however, would be nice if the last answer can be confirmed :)

12:13 <stellar-slack1> <lab> you are welcome. i think we still need more accurate answer from sdf. i didn't read the whole whitepaper.

18:33 <stellar-slack1> <eva> @mvaneijk: thanks for the thoughtful questions - @dm will probably be the best person to give a solid answer/confirmation.

19:14 <stellar-slack1> <dm> @mvaneijk: Let's say the system has two quorums [1,2,3,4,5] and [4,5,6,7,8]. If nodes 7 & 8 fail, then node 6 will be blocked, but the system will have safety. On the other hand, if 4 & 5 fail, then nodes 1,2,3 can diverge from 6,7,8. At that point how to interpret events depends on whose perspective you are taking. If you are node 1, for instance, there are two possible interpretations. One is that you hav

19:14 <stellar-slack1> safety). Two is that nodes 4,5,6,7,8 have all failed, while the state at 1,2,3 is still the ground truth. The first interpretation make sense if 6,7,8 are important financial institutions. In that case it was imprudent for the whole system to pin its safety on malicious nodes 4 & 5. The second interpretation makes sense if 1,2,3,4,5 are the important nodes, and 6,7,8 are either unimportant nodes, or even fake nod

19:14 <stellar-slack1> attack by 4 & 5.

19:16 <stellar-slack1> <dm> Also worth noting that the divergence only occurs if 4 & 5 are malicious. If they just fail by crashing, then you lose liveness but not safety.

19:52 <stellar-slack1> <jed> Proposal for the stellar memo convention: https://github.com/stellar/stellar-protocol/issues/28

19:57 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> @dm: thanks for the explanation. I guess it depends on implementation of stellar-core what happens when two separated chains are joined by reselecting the quorum?

20:06 <stellar-slack1> <dm> Yes, this is not something that happens automatically. Either one fork is way more important, in which case the other nodes just reset their state, or else you will need some sort of human-level negotiation---e.g., all US banks have one state of the world, all European banks have another, and some kind of compromise may be required. But this can only result from active misbehavior of nodes 4 & 5, who were impo

20:06 <stellar-slack1> and then wrote malicious software to divide the world in two, so would face serious sanctions.

20:51 <stellar-slack1> <mvaneijk> "Choose your quorum wisely ..." Thanks for the elaboration. I understand it much better now.