You can read more about RBF here: bip-0125 - Opt-in Full Replace-by-Fee Signaling
The summary isn't too technical.

"Double-spend" is a badly used term IMO because only one will be included in a block, and Bitcoin can't be double-spent.
but based from it's common usage (able to spend the same input of an unconfirmed txn to a new transaction), then RBF indeed falls to that category.
Because the replacement (higher fee txn) is a new transaction that spent the same input(s) of the "bumped" txn.

Alternative to?
Anyway, they can use CPFP, either the Casino to consolidate the unconfirmed deposits, but that's expensive if set to higher fee rate;
or the user if the transaction has a change - spend the change in his new txn but set a high fee rate.
Transactions rarely drop from the mempools anyways and they can re-broadcast, the consequence is usually just long waiting time to withdraw from the Casino.

Although both can speed-up transaction confirmation, those are totally different from each other.
"Child-Pays-For-Parent" is utilizing the miner's parent-child total transaction fee tracking (forgot what it's called)
by creating a child txn with high fee in order to prioritize the low-fee parent txn with it.

It's basically a simple difference in nSequence that marks the transaction "replaceable", Casinos check that to safely implement their "zero-fee deposit" feature.
So if all of the transaction's inputs have FFFFFFFF as nSequence number, it means that it's not opted-in as replaceable.
If it has an unconfirmed parent(s), any of the parent transaction shouldn't be marked as replaceable as well.

All three versions (Stand-alone, Installer and Portable binaries) are built from the same source, so you won't get much difference when it comes with compatibility.
Try to install all of the available windows update for your "Old Version of Windows" (Windows7?).

See if you have both 64bit (x64) and 32 bit (x86) versions, but not if your Windows is 32-bit.
Links for Windows7:

• 64-bit - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=49093
• 32-bit - https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=49077

---

If nothing works, use version 3.3.8 that should work in Windows7 until you've upgraded to Windows10/11.
Old version download link: https://download.electrum.org/3.3.8/

• electrum-3.3.8-setup.exe - Installer
• electrum-3.3.8.exe - Stand-alone
• electrum-3.3.8-portable.exe - Portable

But the input of the previous transaction isn't spent yet, did you used another input(s) for the recreated transaction?
Anyways, 1sat/vB is enough at the moment, it's 1-2 blocks away; but CPFP will definitely speed it up.

What's your client BTW? The previous transaction's input may be locked until you manually drop it from your wallet.
If the new transaction is using the previous' input, then it's not in the mempools yet.

Sorry but this doesn't make sense, please elaborate.
After getting 1 confirmation, it's now included in the blockchain and the subsequent confirmation speed is just based on how fast the next blocks are being mined.
It's not just based from the mining pool that mined the block where your transaction is included, any new blocks mined will add 1 confirmation to your confirmed transaction.

If you can somehow cancel it (extremely hard) and resend, you wont gain any "speed-up" at all.

You're getting "TX Decode Failed" probably because of the spaces,
did he sent it to you through bitcointalk's PM? because it will add some spaces in between some of the characters.
For that, you/he should enclose it between [code][/code] tags.

But the transaction itself has an issue.
Its fee rate is lower than the standard default of 1sat/vB, the total fee should be 168sat since the transaction's size is 168vB (it only has 139sat fee).
So, you wont be able to send it to most of the nodes (with default relay fee setting).

Yeah, I've checked the archived pages of their fee structure and it even increased to 0.001 from 0.0005 during the 2017 (year end) crypto market crash.
http://web.archive.org/web/20171230062232/https://support.binance.com/hc/en-us/articles/115000429332
Was talking about during the crash, not the start of 2017 BTW.

So then, he must be talking about other exchange or just rounding-up his wallet's average absolute fee.

This looks like Binance, their current Bitcoin withdrawal fee is flat 0.0005BTC (previously "dynamic", based on the price of Bitcoin)
During the 2017 bubble, Bitcoin price was excessively higher than it was months ago so if the withdrawal fee is "dynamic", it will be lower, so that must be the reason why you've seen 5000satoshi withdrawal fee.
(not sure if Binance set it that low though considering the mining fee at that time).

That also applies to other custodial wallets/exchange with dynamic withdrawal fee, not in "non-custodial" Bitcoin wallets.

But in Bitcoin, it's based from the network's condition and size of the transaction (in virtual bytes).
The average 'fee rate' (sat/vB) might increase if there are too many unconfirmed transactions competing in mempools;
the 'total fee' will increase based from the 'fee rate' and if the transaction itself is big in size mostly because of having too many inputs.

Aside from the above about using only trusted Exchanges,
make sure to read the Exchange's TOS, FAQs and other articles because most of them have a strict requirements when it comes with large deposits amounts.
you may be required to pass a stricter KYC after depositing even half of your Bitcoins; DYOR.

Congrats BTW, so your previous claim that you've bitcoins from 2011 is true and you've successfully bruteforced the password (link).

Maybe it's pertaining to this 'checkpoints' file:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/electrum/checkpoints.json - contains block hash and target;
Which are from: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/b431d8e9b8f75b99a43540ed6672772abfb68834/electrum/constants.py#L63-L64

I've got the same error and behavior by changing some "block hash" from the client's 'checkpoints.json' and connect to a known working server.
But I guess in your case, it's Electrs server's blockchain at fault; perhaps it's using testnet blockchain rather than mainnet or have some minor corruption?

You may have copied the wrong wallet.dat.
Where did you copied the walllet.dat from; and where did you pasted the wallet.dat to the new laptop?

If you want to make sure, you can make a backup manually and open it in the new laptop (Don't do this if your blockchain is pruned).
In the old laptop, use "File->Backup wallet" while the wallet with 10BTC is open, then transfer the 'walletname.dat' to the new laptop's "wallets" folder of Bitcoin data directory.
Open it using the menu "File->Open wallet", wait for Bitcoin Core to scan for balances.

What "units" are those?
Please include details in your post so users could help you.

If it's a Bitcoin mining ASIC, then you can move this thread in Mining Support board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=40.0
If it's an Altcoin ASIC or GPU, move this to the Altcoin Mining board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=160.0
The "move topic" button is at the lower-left hand side of the page.

Alternatively, contact the manufacturer for technical support.

Isn't "listen=1" the default setting?
If so, not having "listen=0" or a blank config file is as good as adding listen=1 to the config/start parameter.

Yes, "Conbase Wallet" is non-custodial and "Coinbase" is custodial.
But OP's description of the withdrawal doesn't fit 'Coinbase Wallet' so I find it not necessary to mention here.

This has everything you need to know about wallet encryption: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/6b8a5ab622e5c9386c872036646bf94da983b190/doc/README

If you need to do that, you can set a timeout of '1' second so your passphrase master key wont stay in your RAM for too long.

Unfortunately, custodial wallets that fall to that category are most likely scams.
Legit wallets have to comply with your Government's law so a level of verification is required depending on the country.

For Exchanges, their 'withdrawal fee' is ridiculous compared to wallets, you wouldn't want to use them as a wallet even though some of them allow crypto withdrawals for non-verified users.
They can also lock your funds if they found "something" in your transactions.

---

Despite the consensus in the replies, you still decided to go for custodial...
perhaps in terms of privacy, are you only concerned about your privacy against users, not the authorities?

The thing is, Bitcoin is decentralized, meaning, there's no central authority nor client that can implement the changes solely by itself.
The closest thing there is, is Bitcoin Core (the reference client).
Since majority of the nodes use Bitcoin core, any changes to its implementation of Bitcoin will most likely be implemented to Bitcoin unless the majority refused to update or switched to a different Bitcoin client.
I believe I've already sent you a link to Bitcoin Core's repository together with my response to your PM.

Bitcoin has some flaws but not specifically what you've described in the OP.
It's like you're saying: counting from 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 to FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364140
is a "security flaw" because "all those private keys work", sadly it's not "infinity" like your private keys.

In terms of handling funds, Electrum and Blockchain.com are the same because both are non-custodial.
You'll be spending your "unspent transaction outputs" (UTXO) from your received transactions to create a new transaction.
So if you're receiving funds with a single address, all your withdrawals will use the UTXOs associated with that address in your wallet;
to mitigate that, you just have to use a different address every time you receive funds so "receiver A and B" will see that the txns came from different addresses.
You'll have more options in Electrum by utilizing "coin control" for better selection of UTXO.

Coinbase (Wallet/Exchange) is different, it' a "custodial service", withdrawals came from different addresses because those are Coinbase's "Hot Wallet" used for withdrawals.
Different addresses, yes, but in terms of privacy, authorities or whoever in contact with them can easily point your identity based from their database and/or blockchain analysis,
custodial services aren't really that private with their hot wallets, even a regular user can tell that it's from Coinbase by using walletexplorer.com.

Like I have mentioned, the feature is available and standard to the Bitcoin network, it's called "rbf" (replace-by-fee) that can be utilized for double-spending those unconfirmed wrongly sent transactions.
The issue is if the client/wallet supports that "feature", that's why I've suggested you to use Electrum because if that's your client, you could've cancelled that transaction since you've already noticed that it's a scam right after clicking 'send'.

If you want your wallet to have a similar feature, you can open a "feature request" in their repository page if it's open source, contact their support if it's a closed-source wallet.
Explain that you want them to implement something similar to Electrum's "cancel (double-spend)" feature.

It's been almost a month since you found a "security flaw" in Bitcoin (BITCOIN SECURITY).
Please let us know if you already found any balance from the "infinite private keys" that you've found.

You said you're looking for a way to track them and involve law enforcement, right.
Then I'd suggest you to keep your communication with the suspect by stalling with few of more of those "questions" and show it to the authorities.
Police may be able to get some leads if they are knowledgeable in crypto and if the scammer is dumb enough.

Yes it is phishing, blockchain.com's email should be from @blockchain.com or @<subdomain>.blockchain.com - with dot before the url.
(and the replies should be weeks to months apart :D)