As I noted in the instructions, there can be more sets, that's if the transaction is spending more than one input.
You can count the the number of inputs by finding how many txid and vouts sets ("txid" followed by "vout" line) are there before the line ""vout": ["

The "vout" tells which output is the one it's spending.
For example, this transaction: blockchain.com/btc/tx/c41fac476e555483ed6672e99ddcc51ee3ab0028f8ace4d7369c1d0e32ecf948
vout: 0 is bc1pcldgkx2an6fukvssqzkl6tzkll3sj6tcpn6wpxmc99nw8rtkwcws04nvas
vout: 1 is bc1qam5vz2csj0h50qzsnqy3zmunrv0ud6j6m9szd7
If there's a third output, it's vout: 2; for the fourth vout: 3... and so forth.

May be one these reasons:
one is: since Bitcoin Core where the keys are exported is offline, the displayed history isn't correct and what you see in Electrum is the updated/correct balance.
another is: you might have missed some private keys.

Nothing, as I noted in the instructions (again) it's "non-existing, dropped, replaced, etc".
For those that show info, check if the output that is yours is still unspent.

1 & 2 are expected due to the reasons that already given multiple times by multiple members.
You should've said that Bitcoin Core isn't synced in the first place which should've narrowed-down the options.

But can you see any transactions in Electrum's history tab? (not the local transaction from Bitcoin Core).

Anyways, if you want to check if that local transaction's input was already spent, just follow this:

• Launch Bitcoin Core, go to 'Transactions' tab, find the local transaction, right-click on it and select "Copy raw transaction'.
• Open the "Console" (Window->Console) and type decoderawtransaction <space> <paste the copied raw transaction>, press enter.
• In the result, find ""vin": [" just below "locktime", copy the "txid" and "vout" below (not the one on top) which points to the specific input that the local transaction is trying to spend. (there can be two or more sets)
• Use any blockexplorer to check if that TXID is existing and if the output is already spent or not. If there are multiple outputs, refer to the 'vout' (ascending order: 0,1,2,3....)
• If it's spent, then that local transaction is now invalid; if not spent, then there's something wrong with your import to Electrum or something else.
  
  

If it doesn't exist: it only means that the local transaction is trying to spend an input that's non-existing, dropped, replaced or etc.

In case it's not spent: You can refer to that output (txid and vout) to know which private key to export from Bitcoin Core.
Blockexplorers will show the address(es) among the transaction's outputs, then in Bitcoin Core simply use dumpprivkey <space> <address> to export its private key.

It's a "local transaction" that's only saved in your wallet and not backed-up by your private keys.
Since it's from Bitcoin Core, you can only abandon it from Bitcoin Core.

If you properly "moved" (rather imported) the private keys to Electrum, the coins that you might regain from abandoning that transaction in Bitcoin Core
should already be available in Electrum since it's only considered as spent by a local transaction in Bitcoin Core.
The result will be the same if the funds were moved through "sweep" to Electrum instead.

But if you "moved to Electrum" by sending your entire balance through a normal transaction, the local txn's "locked" coin(s) wasn't included to that transfer.
If abandoning it doesn't return any balance, its input was already spent (you can try to rescan to be sure).

If he would use rebroadcast or rbf, it will be sent to the original receiver.
Based on the second paragraph of OP, he doesn't want the transaction to be sent to the 'destination address'.

@Gorilla22 in case you're talking about Electrum, instead of "abandon transaction", Electrum has "remove" which will delete a local transaction.
In both wallets' case, a local transaction is just saved in your wallet and not known by the Bitcoin network, but it affects your wallet's ability to spend the coins it intended to spend.
You can regain that balance after abandoning/removing the local transaction but only if you still haven't spent the particular UTXO(s) that was used by the local txn.

From which client? Based from your other posts, I'll assume that it's Bitcoin Core.
If so, that "stuck transaction" may just be a locally saved transaction and you might have already spent its input.
If not, you can easily abandon it since it must not be in any node's mempool by now.

To "unstuck" it, just go to 'Transactions' tab and use "Right-click->Abandon transaction" and it will be dropped from your wallet.dat.
After abandoning it, the funds that it "locked" should be useable again (the transaction will have red texts).

Of course, I'd advice you to create a backup of your wallet before trying those steps.

Check out this link to Bitcoin's old code (Sep 7, 2010): /bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/41016bfc46b70aace013ffd29143a27bc7288e48/main.h#L19-L20
Even back then, the "COIN" (1BTC in satoshi) is already the same as it is today: /bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/amount.h#L13-L16

Your question seem to be greatly influenced by that Tweet (the source in the OP):
That was 2010, users at that time mostly send whole Bitcoin. Showing beyond two decimal value in the UI is just pointless.
But since the author is talking about "no one expected" (even satoshi), then he's just using it to for publicity
since as you can see in the links above, Bitcoin from 2010 was already prepared for that fast paced adoption.

You seem to have launched an old version of Electrum (with this bug) and accidentally corrupted the wallet that it opened.
Luckily, I think it's just your watching-only wallet since the issue shouldn't occur if it's the old wallet because it should has the same seed version.

Now, before trying anything, backup your wallet file in case something went wrong.
You can find the wallet in "wallets" folder inside Electrum's data directory (wallet/datadir location)
If that old drive is just mounted to another PC, search from that drive letter instead of C:

Note: Your actual wallet isn't electrum.exe but a file inside Electrum's data directory.
It's default name is "default_wallet" or "wallet_1", "wallet_2"... unless you've specified a specific name.

Then, open a copy of the wallet backup using the new/latest version of Electrum (not the old Electrum.exe from your old hard drive).

Watching-only wallets from 2017 can't be encrypted since the password option wont be prompted during wallet creation and the password menu was grayed-out.
It was only added in version 3.1.0  (March 5, 2018). Unless for a reason I wont tell yet, because you might just say "yes I did that"

Perhaps you're talking about "address" instead of "wallet"?

Why apologize?  
I just pointed out his other topic so users will know more about the OP's situation and to prevent repeated questions to the OP.

It can't be a number lower than 25,000, but it can be any higher depending on the machine that encrypted the wallet or updated the passphrase.
Reference: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/100949af0e2551f22c02a73355f2c64710b68ef1/src/wallet/wallet.cpp#L710-L720

But since you might be talking about old (for sale/leaked) wallet.dat files, here's from the old version:
Old version (2013): github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/16b3ff66e0137b68de0d08ad88ce9798bce2d68d/src/wallet.cpp#L258-L268

That's because python 3.9 will not work on Windows 7.
Electrum binaries for Windows are bundled with python and since Electrum v4.2.0, the bundled python version was upgraded to 3.9.10.

We got contradicting replies in this thread probably because of OP's obscure use of the word "hack".

But I think the first part "if electrum software was hacked" should be based from the other concern,
which is the seed phrase-generation being compromised (e.g. reproducible or made from weak entropy) which will made it possible to reproduce Electrum seed phrases.

I though so because OP's earlier topic is about Electrum cold storage setup (link) and as we know it, his seed phrase and wallet are created/stored air-gap.
That should made "his Electrum wallet being hacked" the least of his concern, but "the software being hacked" with compromised entropy/seed phrase generation.

I guess you've already closed your channel and opened another one so this is mostly just for more info:

Not just your channel, the receiver should also have enough liquidity or connection for it to go through.

Do you often send to different services/wallets or just one?
If just one, the receiver's channel might have a very low receiving capacity, not enough for the "deposit request" invoice.
If tried to different recipients, and if you can't send to all of them, then the issue must be in your channel.

Also check your channel's status if it's still "OPEN" before sending anything.

It will render your channel(s)' sending capacity frozen if your channel's remote node isn't a trampoline node (with kangaroo icon).
Since it's "same results" and not prompting you to open another channel, yours must be trampoline.
In that case, leaving "trampoline routing" active is better for faster/better connectivity (the hard-coded trampoline nodes are well-connected anyways).

For reference, here's the old thread of the OP: My Wallet dont work. its still Offline
This thread seems to be intended as a reply to the last post; but since he still haven't answered anything in that thread, I can't add anything.

So you haven't decided yet?
If so, you can try it without spending anything using a testnet wallet which you can fund through testnet faucets.
There's a tutorial in Beginners and Help board about setting up an LN Channel in testnet: [Tutorial] How to create Lightning Network Channel (Testnet BTC)
In that tutorial, the site where you'll purchase some "virtual coffee" is connected to Lightning network (Bitcoin testnet).
There's also a link below that post to a beginners' guide to Lightning Network which is worth the read if you really want to try LN.

The recipient's invoice looks entirely different than a Bitcoin address/invoice.

It would also be great if you can reply (unlike in your other topics where you just left some questions) with your experience after testing LN yourself  ;)

Yes, the extra word will change the seed produced from your seed phrase.

For the number of words... I think something considered as a "strong password" is the best option.
You don't necessarily have to use actual words since it's not actually extra words but a "passphrase" (not your wallet's password),
so a single 13th 'word' like Au%73t61BH!w6g4d82Edqwdqj#jhd633t is good enough.

Husna QA is correct, they only dropped support in v4.2.1 but the issues are initially brought in v4.2.0.
Plus Electrum 4.2.0 is already bundled with python 3.9, v3.9.10 specifically.

Here's the full release notes regarding that update:

The only way for you to possibly use the updated versions is to install python 3.8 (the current minimum) and run Electrum from source using it.
That's if the other dependencies are supported by Windows 7.

Thanks to this reply, the quoted message made it easy to find the single post of the creator of this puzzle transaction.
Link to the post: http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306983.msg18765941#msg18765941

He seems legit because of the fact that #161~256 were indeed spent after a few months since that reply.

You received quite a number of replies in your other thread, link: How to add a node in regtest mode via GUI?

In my reply specifically, you'll have to start bitcoin-qt with --datadir and other parameters.
In the command line, use the same method but start bitcoind with the same parameters but you'll also have to add different -rpcport -rpcuser -rpcpassword per instance
so that you can use bitcoin-cli RPC commands to specific nodes.

This is how I start my bitcoind Regtest 3-Nodes setup:
Node1:
Node2:
Node3:

So, when using bitcoin-cli to use RPC commands, you'll have to add the specific -rpcport -rpcuser -rpcpassword to tell which node to send the command.
Example for Node1:

The other posters are just forum members who are unaffiliated with freebitco.in.
The persons that you should contact are: freebitco.in PR and TheQuin, or just post a reply to that thread.