Quote from: NewMine on December 17, 2014, 04:11:44 pm

Aren't they supposed to be fired for this? Lol

The developers that introduced the forking code to make the network more robust or the delegates who are quickly adapting to keep the network running while the kinks are worked out?

Who would you have replace them that you think would do a better job?

Quote from: mhps on December 16, 2014, 12:24:37 am

The signed message command gave me assert exception. The import wallet command worked. Thanks!

That error actually contains the message that you need to sign, then you need to enter everything on one line once you have the message. But good to see you got it working anyways.

Does somebody know whether bter/btc38/... are reading these forums? Or if someone knows how to contact them? Because I believe that they should either:
 - make sure they are on 0.4.26 as all the delegates (on a frozen network, granted)
 - freeze deposits/withdrawals if they are still on 0.4.25 as people could do a double-spend then

Reverting back to 0.4.25 for delegates on friday was the best solution as most, if not all users, were still on 0.4.25, but 0.4.26 has now been published on bitshares.org so it's hard to estimate which fork it's better to move on to...

what about downgrading to v 0.4.25-RC2 again?

I'll just post this here as it might be of interest:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12160.msg161251#msg161251