The old way of accessing your coins was via the Ledger Chrome apps: https://support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/360007534774-Download-Ledger-Chrome-apps. Some of these have been permanently deactivated, but I believe the Manager and Bitcoin apps are still functional. Be aware that they haven't been updated in some time, and so using them is a big security risk.

As you say, there are rare cases of Ledger devices needing reset due to a bug in updating them. If I were you, I would move all your coins to a new wallet in which you know the mnemonic phrase, then go about trying to update your Ledger. Once your Ledger is up to date, create a new wallet on the Ledger, safely store the mnemonic phrase, and then move your coins to this new wallet.

You can also use your Ledger with another wallet such as Electrum without needing access to your mnemonic phrase. This is probably a safer option than using the outdated Chrome apps.

This scenario is discussed in detail in Section 11 "Calculations" of the Bitcoin Whitepaper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

The "block height" is simply a number used to order all the blocks in the blockchain. The genesis block has a height of 0. At time of me writing this, the most recent block has a height of 579,092. The next block mined will have a height of 579,093. As so on. "1 block before the height of the transaction sent to the exchange" essentially means starting at a 1 block deficit. So if I sent a transaction to the exchange, waited for it to have 1 confirmation, and then tried to launch an attack to reverse that transaction, I would be starting from 1 block before, or a 1 block deficit.

In terms of having enough hashing power to overtake a 1 block deficit, the equations for calculating are given in the whitepaper I linked to above. You can also play around with the numbers on this site to see for yourself: https://people.xiph.org/~greg/attack_success.html. Set the "Number of confirms" to 1, which is the same as starting from 1 block before. With 51% of the hashrate, you would always be successful, but with 24% of the hashrate, you would still have a 50% chance of overcoming a 1 block deficit.

Many confirmations simply means the transaction is final and cannot be reversed. The coins you sent are now firmly in their wallets. Having no outputs and being "Unspent" simply means they haven't yet moved your coins from the address you sent them to. The coins are still very much in their wallets, though.

Do not provide them with any more information and do not click on any link or download any software they may send you.

For the reasons explained above. They can either be used to track your transactions in an effort to breach your privacy, or they can flood your wallet and ramp up your fees. If you know what you are doing and using a proper client like Electrum, then yes, it is trivial to ignore them. But some people will be using clients which don't allow proper UTXO management. They could quite easily set up a transaction, and their wallet automatically chooses to send all this dust, causing a huge transaction size. If they are using a sub-par wallet like that, then chances are it also poorly estimates fees, so they end up paying huge fees for a huge transaction without realizing what they are doing.

Stop using a web wallet and trusting an anonymous uninsured third party with your coins. Import your seed to your own wallet and take control of your funds.

I would argue that asking for KYC is a red flag in and of itself, regardless of whether the team is anonymous. There are few legitimate reasons to require KYC, and these are mostly for exchanges or other platforms which are accepting fiat deposits or withdrawals, so they can comply with anti money laundering requirements. There are very few times when an ICO, altcoin, bounty campaign, or similar really require KYC. The vast majority of times your details are simply being sold to the highest bidder, which could be anything from advertisers to identity thiefs.

This is true, but the risk of this attack being successful is significantly smaller on a hardware wallet than it is on a software wallet, as you have to check the transaction address on the hardware wallet before you can sign the transaction. Essentially, an attack like this can only be successful on a hardware wallet if you aren't paying attention and following the proper steps.

Have a read of this thread: Electrum-3.3.6 Trojan.GenericKD.41303315

Electrum commonly has false positives. Make sure you are downloading it from the correct link (you are), and make sure you verify your download by following these instructions: https://bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-verify-your-electrum-download/.

If you've done both of those things, then it comes down to whether or not you trust the developers (almost everybody here does). If you don't then the only solution is to examine the source code yourself (if you have the knowledge/ability to do so) and then compile it yourself if you trust it.

No offense, but your English isn't great, so I'm going to try to interpret your question. I think you are asking how you would be able to access your coins if the Exodus wallet app was discontinued or hacked?

The answer is your 12 or 24 word seed phrase, which I assume you mean when you say "keywords". That phrase will allow you to restore your wallet on any other platform which also uses the BIP39 standard, as Exodus does. You can read more about this here: https://support.exodus.io/article/925-everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-recovery-phrase

The market doesn't even need to move that much for people to lose their life savings. There was a post on reddit a few days ago from a guy who was margin trading on BitMEX with too much leverage, and liquidated his entire holdings during the brief spike to $9,000 then instant pull back which happened a few days ago. People take risks on things they don't understand regardless of whether we are at $3k or $20k.

Honestly, I don't really mind either way. In the long term, bitcoin is only going up. If that happens now - great. If we are going to retrace first, then all the more time to accumulate at cheap prices.

Or this. I made a $10 transaction earlier today and paid 1 sat/byte for it, which worked out at around 2 cents. Take a look at this site - https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#1,2d - and you will see the mempool periodically emptying to pretty much zero every few days at the longest, but often much more frequently than that. If your transaction isn't time critical, there is currently no need to spend more than a couple of sat/byte or a few cents on fees, and just be patient.

This is the best advice. Google and Apple mobile stores are absolutely teeming with fake and scam wallets, filled with fake 5 star reviews, often with similar or identical names and images to established wallets, hoping that you will download them so they can again steal all your coins. The best option is to buy an established hardware wallet (Ledger or Trezor) direct from the vendor. Even if you are using fake or scam software in conjunction with your hardware wallet, you are still protected as you need to manually approve every transaction on the hardware wallet, and this cannot be faked.

I've lost track of all the pointless new threads over the last few days and weeks. Vod v OgNasty, QS v Hhampuz, CH/TOAA/mightyDT/Thule/et al v everyone, marlboroza v TECSHARE, teeGUMES/Bill Gator/Rmcdermott927 v Lauda, pretty much everyone v everyone else in various combinations. Every thread seems to degenerate quickly in to simply insulting each other, and as far as I can tell, no one has ever come close to changing someone's mind on any of these issues.

We also all know the saying "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results." If you genuinely feel the need to leave a negative rating for another member then by all means do so, but I would thoroughly implore everyone involved to stop the never-ending circular arguments, stop leaving ever escalating amounts of frivolous retaliatory red trust, hit that ignore button, and move on with your lives. It would be good for you and it would be good for the forum.

It is still very much possible to send that amount or more for 1 thousand satoshi or less in fees. In fact, there was a transaction just a few hours ago which moved over 3 BTC for only 224 satoshi in fees: https://btc.com/bfdee782862f5b0140c07c2125911b60d382d6b318b838c07afc3a1b5fbc1b95. Thanks to Segwit, it is now possible to make a 1-input-2-output transaction which takes up less than 200 bytes, so the fee could have been even cheaper than that.

Use Lightning.

It's all relative. It might be a huge sum of money to an individual, but to a local police department with limited resources, $14,000 in a crime that would be exceptionally difficult to trace, probably isn't worth the effort. Most crypto thefts, even those running in to the thousands of bitcoin and the millions of dollars, go unpunished.

OP's only chance at this point is to go to the police, but even then, the chance is very, very small.

I would add a caveat that ideally (depending on your level of paranoia and how much bitcoin you are planning to store in this wallet), this should be done on an air-gapped device (i.e. a device which does not have, and will never have, internet access). An almost as good alternative would be a live Linux distro. There is a possibility (small, but not insignificant) that there is a keylogger or similar malware on your device, and by typing in your seed phrase it becomes compromised in the process.

Personally I always recommend a hardware wallet. It generates the seeds for you. If I ever have to enter a seed in to any computer or phone, I immediately consider it compromised and move all my funds to a new wallet.

They will not hand out their customer details without good reason, and you simply asking for them is is not reason enough. Your only option here is to file a police report and see if the police can get a warrant to obtain the customer's data. It will be difficult to prove that you were scammed though, and even then, as bones261 has said, the scammer almost certainly has signed up with fake details and via Tor or a VPN. There will also be no proof that the person who rented the server is the same person who coded the malicious wallet file. I'm afraid it is probably not worth the time or effort for your police department to investigate for a relatively small sum of money.

Do companies actually get traffic from this kind of stupidity? I would imagine that using that money to pay for a signature campaign or buy an advertising banner would have a much higher rate of return than pissing people off en masse with these dust attacks.

I have many addresses and have never once been subjected to this behavior. Presumably they use addresses which have previously been used to sign up for gambling services or maybe airdrops or something like that, so they know they are spamming individual people with active addresses, and not addresses belonging to an exchange or service or something similar. If that is the case, then just move your coins to a new address and ignore the dust attack on the old one.

If a node already has a transaction stored in its mempool waiting to be confirmed, and it learns of a new conflicting transaction which is attempting to double spend, by default it will simply reject the new transaction and it also will not broadcast the new conflicting transaction on to other nodes.

I don't know the details, but presumably once a transaction is stored on a "critical number" of nodes/mempools, it becomes very hard for a conflicting double spend transaction to propagate through the network. That's not to say it's impossible (and there remain other ways to double spend a transaction), but it would give an extra level of protection.

That's got almost nothing to do with the transaction fee of the bitcoin network, and is entirely down to the withdrawal fee set by exchanges. Many exchanges set frankly ridiculous withdrawal fees, not just for bitcoin, but for altcoins as well. Binance and Kraken, for example, currently charge 0.0005 BTC per withdrawal, which is, as you say, around $5. Considering a 1-input-2-output transaction, even at recent peak fees of 200 sats/byte, they are still making a profit on withdrawals. The profit becomes even bigger when you consider they batch their withdrawals to save massively.

If you don't like paying that for withdrawals, then you need to either find a better exchange or trade peer-to-peer.

That's not how the burden of proof works. If you make a claim like "I am Satoshi", the onus is on you to provide evidence to prove your claim. No one else is obligated to provide evidence to disprove your claim. I can't just go around saying to people "Prove I'm not Satoshi", just like I can't say to people "Prove I'm not Jesus".

Yes, literally anyone can claim they are Satoshi, but if, like CSW, they are not going to provide a single shred of legitimate evidence to support that claim, then they should all be rightly ignored.