chain | Chain provides you with a consistent and chainable way

The "transaction underpriced" error occurs, when you're trying to replace a transaction and the replacing gas price is too low.

web3.eth.getTransactionCount() only returns the amount of mined transactions. But you can have N (not just one) of transactions that are waiting to be mined with already higher nonce.

Example:

• You have submitted 4 transactions - nonces 1, 2, 3, and 4.
• Transactions 1 and 2 are successfully mined.
• getTransactionCount() returns 2
• When you're trying to submit another tx with nonce 3 or 4, it's trying to replace the already existing transactions.

Solution:

Use even higher gas price if you want to replace the existing transaction.

Or if you want to submit a new transaction (and not replace the previous), use higher nonce (sum of "successfully mined" + "waiting to be mined" + 1) that your address haven't used.

In general I like to use observables lazily... If you had a service which looked like:

It is not possible to use [0] in renderItem. You can use simply use array slice() method to get only fist elements.

Example:

I ended implementing the TLS handshake timeout this way:

Here I'm wondering about the line [in s_client]
New, TLSv1/SSLv3, Cipher is ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384

You're apparently using OpenSSL 1.0.2, where that's a basically useless relic. Back in the days when OpenSSL supported SSLv2 (mostly until 2010, although almost no one used it much after 2000), the ciphersuite values used for SSLv3 and up (including all TLS, but before 2014 OpenSSL didn't implement higher than TLS1.0) were structured differently than those used for SSLv2, so it was important to qualify the ciphersuite by the 'universe' it existed in. It has almost nothing to do with the protocol version actually used, which appears later in the session-param decode:

You should show the error as text, not include a link to a picture.

Also give the error ID, CPFxxxx not just the description.

The message is pretty self-explanatory, and you can find out even more details in the second level message text. (Hit F1 on the message if an active job or look at the joblog if the job has ended.)

Your UPDSR or DLTSR is doing an UPDATE or DELETE op-code without first reading the record via CHAIN.

The panda's answer is certainly nicer:

I have one big question here. While this is correct (it yields the same response) is this the correct thing to do?

Essentially, yes, you've done it correctly. The only things that aren't really correct there are your Webclient usage, and your style.

You certainly don't have to specify a WebClient per URI (and you shouldn't, they're meant to be reusable.) So if you have different domains and the same webclient, just create a standard instance:

In order to use the .send({from: ...}) method, you need to

• Have the from account unlocked on your provider.

  OR

• Add its private key to the web3 account wallet (docs)

Ulocked provider account

This approach is mostly used on local providers (e.g. Ganache) that fund and unlock some accounts by default.

Keeping an unlocked account on a production provider is unwise, because anyone who queries the provider can send transactions.

Web3 account wallet

You need to pass the private key that generates the from address.