I'm also having trouble after the recent hard fork.  Monero runs well on my local machine, but I'm also running it on a vps and on that machine Monero has done nothing but give me headaches since the upgrade.

That's what I'd like to know.

Something strange is happening with this fork.
Monerujo, which has been updated to version 12, shows the wrong block height, compared with the version 12 daemon I'm running locally.
As does wallet-cli when it's connected to a remote daemon that I know is running version 12, because it's on a vps that belongs to me.
?
Does anybody have success using a wallet that isn't connected to a local daemon?

You're kind of new here, I can see.  Making a practice of derailing discussion so that nothing comes of it.

These are NOT two hd accounts based on the same seed.

They are two completely independent hd accounts, created from two different seeds.

Mycelium is able to do that.  Go to Add New Account --> Advanced.  You can scan an HD account that's completely unrelated to anything you have on the phone already.

I didn't create the second hd account from the first one.  The two accounts have different seeds.
The second account in this case is not a sub-account of the first one.  It is a new account with a DIFFERENT SEED.

Mycelium can run two (or more) wallets with different seeds, but only exports the seed of one of them.
That's a bug, and there's no use mincing words about it.
And just for the record, I'm not saying that the ability to run two accounts with different seeds is a bug.
The bug is mycelium's inability to export more than one seed.

I have two accounts in my Mycelium Android wallet.  They are labeled:

Bitcoin HD(1)  and   Other(1)

They are both HD wallets.

When I go to the Other(1) account and try to export the seed, it gives me the seed of the Bitcoin HD(1) account.

New chart from klee in the PnF thread

also, masterluc says (google translate)

As that sucks everything went. The scenario I proposed is on the verge of failure. To continue it, the price should immediately turn around. Or to turn sharply around $ 6000.

As we are:
- Under the daily sma200 (punching down)
- Under the weekly sma20
- Under daily sma20
- Under the long-term trend (punching down)

The most sad first and last fact.

This means that when the daily smash of 200 is broken down, the medium-term picture breaks down. And the next support is on the lower historical trend - $ 3000.

A bullish long-term picture breaks when it breaks down $ 3,000.

Consider that in dollar cost averaging, you convert dollars at a steady rate into another asset.  It works, because when the asset is expensive, your dollars buy less of it, and when the asset is cheap your dollars buy more of it.  That's exactly how you want to go about buying something.
Now consider selling an asset.  If you extract dollars at a steady rate from your store of the asset, it means that when the asset is expensive, you sell less of it, and when the asset is cheap you sell more of it.  That is most definitely not how you want to do it.
Instead, to wind down your position in an asset, you should sell that asset at a steady rate; e.g., sell the same amount of bitcoin every month.
By doing it that way, you are getting more dollars when bitcoin is expensive, and less dollars when bitcoin is cheap.
Another way to think about it is this:  when you acquire an asset using dollar cost averaging, in effect you're selling dollars, and by selling those dollars at a steady rate you get the best results.  Winding down an asset's position is the mirror image that process.  You're selling bitcoin, and selling those bitcoins at a steady rate denominated in bitcoin (not dollars) gives the best results.

You succumbed to the common cognitive error that two events occurring at the same time must therefore be causally related.

Long live Bitcoin Vanga
https://vk.com/bitcoin_vanga

I'd suggest dollar cost averaging then hodl, but I know that's not your style

I use a Chromebook with galliumos, which is a distro based on xubuntu made especially for Chromebooks.  And I replaced the 32 Gig ssd with a 128 Gig ssd.  No dual booting, just linux.  I've had dual boot machines in the past but for my cheap, efficient little acer c720p Chromebook it's linux all the way and cli monero daemon and wallet that run like a dream.

Found this
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2370501.0

I'm running 0.11.1.0 Helium Hydra 64 bit linux on a notebook and Armv7 on a phone.
My daemon says


The update is not available yet at getmonero.org
It still says
Current Version: 0.11.1.0 Helium Hydra

I guess you meant to type definitely, but defiantly works too.

The wallet has to sync the block that contains the transaction.  The wallet only shows transactions that it has synced.

I'm trying to parse the seriousness of this... attack, for lack of a better word.
If revealing the real input was the only problem, it wouldn't bother me so much, because it's only one transaction.  Monero would live on without permanent ill effects.
But some of the reddit comments give the impression that there are knock-on effects that compromise other transactions.
My main concern is how it will affect the pool of decoy inputs.  Does the fact each transaction that's executed on both chains reveals four decoys mean that those decoys are rendered useless thereafter?  Or can the same decoys be used in future transactions safely?

Fixing a hole in the ocean
Trying to make a dove-tail joint, yeah
Looking through a glass onion.

Nope.