static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is

static or dynamic leadership selection. It is helpful, therefore to think of two sets of peers from leadership perspective – those that have static leader selection, and those with dynamic leader selection set, zero or more peers can be configured as leaders. For the dynamic set, one peer will be elected leader by the set. Moreover, in the dynamic set, if a leader peer fails, then the remaining peers will re-elect contract with namespaces. It’s worth noting that an application communicates with the peer, and the peer routes the request to the appropriate chaincode container which then accesses the DBMS. This routing is