Based from the deleted reply address' history, the final destination is indeed Binance's hot wallet.
Send-all transaction was one block away from the last "usual" (two outputs: receiver and self) transaction.
Honestly, every other transactions look like non-batched withdraw-from-exchange transactions to me (you sure it's your address?).

Anyways, the "send-all" transaction was almost a year ago: June 4, 2021,
I highly doubt Binance can block the depositor's funds unless he haven't withdrawn it yet.
All you can do it to contact them (together with the authorities) and see if they can provide some info about the hacker's identity.

For legacy, it wont work, it should be at least 546 satoshi.

When was that?
Because before dustrelayfee and when the default minrelaytxfee was higher, the considered dust amount was higher too since it's based from it.
I can't pinpoint the exact date but I'm sure that it was higher a few years ago.

No one can tell unless you provide more information.

You can follow this format: Tech Support Help Request Format
I'll also ask a Mod to move this to "Electrum" board.

You mean the addresses in the "Addresses" tab?

In Desktop Electrum: Right-click on the address of your choice, select "details"; then click the QR code icon near the address (above);
A QR code of that address will be displayed.
This button:


In Android Electrum: Go to 'Menu/...->Addresses', tap the address of your choice, then tap the green highlighted address and the QR code will be displayed.

For that goal, it is indeed non-custodial and your coins wont be locked-up since the 12-word-backup can be recovered with any other BIP39 supported wallet.
I've only tested Bitcoin asset and since it's BIP39 seed I assume it's same for the altcoins as well.

But you've mentioned "large amount of money", I don't think it's a good idea to use a smartphone app to store that.
If it's ease-of-use and safety you're looking for, opt-in for a "hardware wallet" instead.

The transaction may not be broadcasted at all the first time you sent it, or other reasons that could drop a transaction from mempools;
It might also be a sync issue.

Whatever the reason is, just clear Ledger Live's cache to clear the "non-existing" transactions from its history.
Link: support.ledger.com/hc/en-us/articles/4404381846929-Clear-cache-in-Ledger-Live

Does the address you're sending into starts with '3' or '1'?
Because neither of those can receive less than 0.00000546 BTC.
It will only work if it starts with 'bc1'

Electrum has a list of default dust limit in its code here: /electrum/bitcoin.py#L351-L357

Note: '3' address may be SegWit, Multisig or other scripts but the network won't be able to see the 'redeem script' based from the address/scriptPubKey alone.

---

If you also send the remaining 500satoshi, it wont be added to the previous transaction's output. It will be a separate UTXO.
So they might not accept it depending on how they process transactions.

They never answered to that PR, but my best guess is it has something to do with the standard rule of Bitcoin network, not based from use-case.
Since the maximum number of allowed sigops for P2SH is "15",
the devs might have decided to set 15 maximum cosigners in desktop Electrum's MultiSig wallet setup.

Reference (Bitcoin): github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/policy/policy.h

I'll just leave these links here, you can check the dates and the comments in each for more info:

This post indicated the version which "keypool" has been introduced: /index.php?topic=1414.0
The commit that introduced keypool and the default 100 value: key pool for safer wallet backup

Then the default was changed to 1000: PR#10831: Batch flushing operations to the walletdb during top up and increase keypool size.
Commit: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/10831/commits/41dc1635878766e4a810e6a7c57637d079fced64

Compressed PubKey was introduced in this PR: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/649 That was posted years before the default keypool was set to 1000.

What I get is the highlight is only there to emphasize the non-zero characters of the first hash.

If that's not the case, then yes you're correct.

Both are nearly impossible to find.
Since both are representing a 256-bit number, the search space would be too high to have a chance of finding them.
And SHA-256 is irreversible.

The best search term would be "hash collision".

---

If you're referring to mining, then the search query is "Bitcoin mining target" (target).

And in terms of mining, the miner is looking for a value lower than the target, not exact.
So, since 19270ea4f98808a63fbb99bc26a5ee6f0fe8df9c8182cf1d710b115d57250578 is higher than 000000000000000000016923fc405bbb8e9552072b0905adeb4115706e569bb2,
it'll be easier to find a hash that's lower than the former than the latter.

My main concern on this is: People might get an idea of storing a (physical) printed picture in their vault as the backup
and use the original/scanned image file to make a key pair.
Since there's already a physical backup, they might consider deleting the original image.

That wont work since a scanned image wont have the same hash as the original image used to create the key pair.
Every scan will also produce a slightly different image, thus, different hash.
Without the original image file that processed by this tool, users wont be able to recover their funds.

The forum has a bug in displaying the first column of the table, the image may look small or if there are rows, tightly compressed.
It will show just fine in preview but not in the actual post.

The workaround is to add a dummy empty first column [td][/td] in every row,
using your example:

added second row:

It's cleaner than adding a whole table inside the first column because this wont add a few pixels between the first and second column.

Add --enable-gpu argument to your command.
That's assuming that you've successfully installed pyopencl and your GPU is supported.

note: You can check all available commands by entering: python btcrecover.py -h

The developers chose that because of Android and QR code's limitations (more in the link below).
There was a discussion in Electrum's GitHub repository about that decision: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/5133

Others call it "import" but instead of import, "sweep" will automatically send the funds to one of the wallet's address.

Or the other way to read it?:
Everyone who told you that it's not recoverable is a suspect, eh? :-X
With that reply, I think you get that I'm considering a possibility that the actual issue is: you might have sent it accidentally to an unrecoverable address and looking for some sort of Bitcoin "authority" to refund it.
If not, then the second and third posts are still the best answers.

Looks like the culprit is a dedicated (stolen) BTC hodler, probably waiting for bitcoin to reach the moon.

Jokes aside, have you ever tried to "sweep" it to another wallet?
Because that's one way that it could be sent to another address which belongs to the wallet where you perform sweep.

BTW, Bitcoin is non-custodial and decentralized - your funds is in your control and there's no central authority that manages bitcoins.
So, even the developers can't refund your bitcoins.

For address' checksum, there's nothing to recover since the data that's hashed twice is already there.
e.g: Decode the address from BASE58 into HEX, the last 4 bytes is the checksum and the rest is the data that was hashed twice.
(cannot be applied to bech32)

For WIF private key's checksum, it's basically the same (WIF to Private key).
But which data to recover? It's basically the same private key, but in different format.

Wasn't khaled talking about non-custodial non-2fa wallet with multi-sig support? (based from "the closest thing")
In which case, instead of using a 2fa authenticator app, the second cosigner will be on that device instead.

It's part of the consensus rules.
The value is set in this part of the reference client's code: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/consensus/consensus.h

Reasons for the having "coinbase_maturity" are already given by others;
more in bitcoin.stackexchange: bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/1991/what-is-the-block-maturation-time