You currently need at least 20sat/vbyte for it to even be broadcasted. The chances of it being confirmed within any reasonable timeframe is still very low even if you were to use 20sat/vbyte.

Some exchange actually has a fixed withdrawal fee. There is thus no difference between withdrawing at 10sat/vbyte or 100sat/vbyte for the user. Since the transactions can always be batched, the TX fees paid by the exchange can still be greater than the TX fee paid by the user to the exchange.

A notable example is Binance which charges 0.0005BTC per withdrawal.

There are also probably a smaller proportion of scheduled payments which cannot be delayed. Given that the high fees has persisted for some time, I imagine that there is no recourse for this.

Yes.

If you've never had a history of any unclean shutdown, there could also be a slight chance of some hardware failure. You can try checking your RAM (memtest86) and disk (crystaldiskmark) for any bad sectors. Bitcoin Core tends to magnify any insignificant hardware faults as well.

For the most parts, the reduction in fees would arise from the transaction being a segwit transaction and that is independent of the output addresses. The way that Bech32 addresses are represented does provide some sort of discount (3bytes per output) due to the different scripts being used, it doesn't translate to noticeable fees savings which is what OP wants.

As the debug.log suggests, there is some corruption with your files.  How did you shut down Bitcoin Core previously? Was it unclean or did you wait until the dialog to disappear?

Unfortunately, you have to build the database again. Try running it with -reindex-chainstate. It would work if your chainstate is corrupted, and is strictly faster than a reindex. If it doesn't work, then you'll have to do a reindex.

It really depends on your wallet behavior. Does you wallet actually check the mempool if its purged? (Perhaps someone who uses Trezor can chime in) If it doesn't, it'll probably be stuck at unconfirmed and it won't be removed automatically.

It is hard to say whether it would get confirmed or not. The transaction is still valid and the miners can still include it in their block if they want. The main difference right now is that if you were to be able to create a transaction spending the same inputs right now, it won't get rejected and have a good propagation, hence a good chance of a confirmation as well. I'd recommend you to try to switch to another wallet instead.

You're talking about altcoins. You need to exchange for them with Bitcoins and that assumes your recipients are willing to accept them as a payment. I don't see any point with sending payment that low, unless you're talking about an off-chain transaction.

You can consider using Lightning network for something like this, but of course your recipient needs to have a channel open first with some inbound capacity.

Purged from the mempool. Note that miners can include any valid transactions that they want and will often include some low fee transaction due to either them being paid or the transactions being their own. Even if the transaction gets purged from the node's mempool, miners who has seen it can still potentially (though very very unlikely) include it in their mined block.
Purged.

Your understanding is on point, you can post the TXID if you want but that'll result in some loss of privacy.

I've never used Trezor's suite but I'll assume that they do not purge the transactions themselves. If you were to use Trezor with some other client, Electrum for example, it should not appear or will appear as a Local transaction and you can remove that and resend again.

Please don't blindly trust anyone here, do your own research. The rank has little to no significance to their trustworthiness, there are plenty of examples of higher ranking members getting involved in scams.

The link to LoyceV's thread documents the proper usage of the trust system fairly well. Note that the Trusted/Untrusted feedback depends on how you structure your Trust list. Do try to modify your Trust List as you go along to include/exclude people whose judgement you find accurate/inaccurate.

It is a mining farm, not a mining pool. There is nothing you can do if the ASICs are offline due to a power cut or any unexpected events. It is simply not possible to transport so many miners within a short period of time.
No safeguards, other than the fact that miners are essentially burning cash this way. The time between blocks would be larger until at least the next difficulty adjustment.

Completely wrong. Any sudden increase in hashpower and consequently a shorter block interval would be offset by the next difficulty adjustment. Any effects would most likely be shortlived.

Modifying the CSV is unfortunately your only option. Using specific spreadsheet shortcuts to calculate the value to pay to each user and it would be fairly quick as well.

Electrum checks and treats the value after the comma in BTC and isn't linked to the fiat conversion. Perhaps make an issue on Github as a feature enhancement?

While security by obscurity is something that most secure element manufacturers uses, it doesn't apply in this case. The vulnerability is an inherent weakness in the chip and IIRC, the chip itself is closed source.

SD card encryption only works if you're able to isolate them from one another. If the attacker can get both your SD card and your Trezor, then there'll be no point.

Yes. You need to use Taproot addresses to be able to reap the benefits. The hardware wallet has to support Schnorr rsignature as the signing is done on the hardware wallet itself. I haven't heard about any developments on this though.
Nope. Taproot activation is still quite far away on mainnet.

There is actually a way. It would work only if the nodes have already purged your transaction from their mempool.

Import your Blockchain.com wallet into Electrum, the one containing the transaction for your 10sat/byte transaction. Check if your transaction has a computer symbol on the left, right click and press Remove. Your transactions should be removed from the wallet and you can resend your transaction.

The current minimum fee to enter the mempool is higher than the fee rates of your first transaction and that should result in most nodes purging your transaction.

Hmm I'm wrong then. Fees were much lower when I last checked.

Electrum removed the TX fees settings from their settings and I haven't gotten the chance to test it out yet. I believe they moved it from the settings for it to be promoted to the user when creating a transaction.

What kind of wallet are you using? Is it a normal wallet or is it a 2FA wallet with TrustedCoin?

I'm ruling out the fees as the issue, the transaction fees shouldn't be that high and the dialog is displayed when the user initiates a transaction (IIRC).

Probably compatibility. Wallets like Blockchain.com or several other services do not recognize bech32 addresses. If you want to switch to a bech32 wallet, you'll need a non-bech32 address first.

Hmm, why bother structuring your topic as a question when you could've just made your statement as the OP

Calculation for the quantum computer is off by a couple of billion of qubits, estimates puts it at about ~1200 I think. I'm almost certain that your math and assertions are not correct. Perhaps try to show us a working example instead?

What wallet are you using?

The process will be different for all the wallets. Generally for any wallet other than Electrum, seed types are interchangable and is only dependent on how the wallet treats the seeds.

Don't think government can really stop Bitcoin even if they want to. The lack of a central authority makes it very difficult to cripple the system and any attempts would involve censorship of their internet.

Bitcoin can probably last for a long time, the branding that is. Bitcoin in a few years would look very different from the version that we have today. Allowing it to evolve continually gives it a chance to survive against any threats.