Cryptonator is a custodial wallet and have full control over the funds.
That transaction has been probably made by Cryptonator. They can move the fund to their own wallet or use it to process withdrawals of other users.

That's like an exchange. Your withdrawal isn't made from the address you deposited to.

Are you sure the address you posted is your Cryptonator deposit address? Because that's one of the inputs of the transaction you posted.
Or maybe you posted a wrong transaction ID and this is your deposit?
Either the address or the transaction ID is wrong.

Anyway, even if you have made the deposit to the correct address, the only thing you can do now is to contact their support again. The wallet in question is a custodial wallet and no one else can help you.

Please don't use red color. Use the default color.

Anyway, you should do that yourself.

You have sent bitcoin to freebitco before. Okay? Where did you send that fund from? You are the only one who knows the answer to this question. Even if I login to your account, I can't know that.
Have you set a bitcoin address as your withdrawal address in your profile? If so, do you remember where did you take that address from?

You can't change your email address here.
They have probably asked you to sign a message from your bitcoin address to prove your ownership of the account. This topic is only a guide on how to sign a message.

The first requirement for signing a message from a bitcoin address is that you must have full control over that. This means that the address has to belong to a non-custodial wallet.
If an address belongs to an exchange or any custodial service, there is no way to sign a message from that.

Do you have control over one of the addresses you deposited from? Where did you deposit from?
Or do you have control over the address you set at your profile? Where does that address come from?

There is no proof that the issued tokens are backed by real dollar. I wouldn't be surprised if a day USDT tokens lose their value.

The other problem which makes USDT so insecure is that, your tokens can be frozen even at your non-custodial wallet.
For more information about this, I recommend you to read the topic created by mk4. Visit the link below.

[UPDATED] PSA: Most Stablecoins Can Be Frozen, Even in Your Own Wallets

First of all note that the transaction fee depends on number of inputs, not number of addresses you spend from.
Assuming you have received 5 transactions in a single address and now you want to spend all the fund, your transaction sill has 5 inputs.

Secondly, when it comes to calculating the transaction size, there is no difference between the change address and the recipient's address. Each of them adds a same size of data to your transaction.

If you want to see the history of the required transaction fee, I think the best option is jochen-hoenicke website.
Set the period at top of the page and move the mouse pointer to see the mempool condition in different times.

The tool displays size of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool at different fee rates.

Let me explain how the tool works with an example.
Look at the image below. (Note that this is just an example and doesn't show the current condition of the network.)



According to the data shown in the above image:
There are 17.7 vMB of transactions paying at least 1 sat/vbyte.
There are 15.6 vMB of transactions paying at least 2 sat/vbyte.
There are 15.0 vMB of transactions paying at least 3 sat/vbyte.
There are 13.9 vMB of transactions paying at least 4 sat/vbyte.
........
........
........

Any block can include up to 1 vMB of transactions.
So, assuming the size of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool is as shown in the above image, the required fee for getting confirmation in the next block is 15-17 sat/vbyte.  
Of course, the network isn't that congested now and as mentioned by LoyceV in the above post, 1 sat/vbyte should be enough now.

Note that the required fee is dynamic and can change over time.
There is no way to guarantee that a transaction will be confirmed in the next block.

Yes, electrum allows to select which address(es) you want to spend from.
To do so, go to "Addresses" tab and right-click on any of addresses you want to spend from and select "Spend".
Note that you can use "Shift" and "Ctrl" buttons to select multiple addresses.

You can also select "Freeze" to tell electrum to not use that address for your transaction.

o_e_l_e_o meant that, instead of answering question X, we should answer the question Y.

Question X: How to see previous addresses?
Question Y: Why do you want to see the previous addresses again?

Anyway, as already stated, previous addresses are still valid and the problem seems to be solved now.

I just registered on Remitano to see how it works.
In the following image, you can see the menu appears after clicking on the 3-dots button.
I couldn't find any option for seeing previous generated addresses.




Yes, that's exactly how Remitano  works.
I clicked on "generate new address" button 20 times and now the button doesn't work anymore.

As the address starts with 3, the private key shouldn't be uncompressed.

---

- Create a new wallet.
- Select "Import bitcoin addresses or private keys"
- Enter your private key (not the encrypted one) and don't forget to use the prefix "p2wpkh-p2sh:"

The private key should be entered as shown below.



Also, I recommend you to create a new electrum wallet and send all the fund to that.
It's not secure to keep the fund on an address generated by a web wallet.

You can enable two-factor authentication.
To do so, you should click "Change account setting".


I just activated 2FA on dogechain.info to see how it works.
Before activation of 2FA, they were sending me a code via email, but now they no longer send me that code and I have to use the code generated by 2FA application.

Didn't you register multiple accounts on the website?
If so, there's the possibility that your account has been disabled.

Of course, I'm not sure that's the case here. That was only a guess based on what has happened to accounts of some faucet abusers before.  
You will probably get the answer from TheQuin (Freebitco's admin) soon.

Miguel 11th is probably talking about Casascius physical bitcoins. They are something like a paper wallet.
In Casascius coins, there's a paper containing a private key inside the coin and you have to break the coin for accessing that paper.


I don't think such physical coins are popular these days.
Even Casascius coins are no longer produced. If someone has an undamaged casascius coin now, may be able to sell that at a value higher than bitcoin price on market.

You can do that on any wallet supporting importing private keys. But it's not recommended to use any wallet.
The purpose of a paper wallet is to keep the private key offline. If you import the private key of a paper wallet into any online wallet, it would defeat its purpose.

Whenever you want to make a transaction, you can import the private key into an offline computer and sign the transaction there. A good wallet allowing you to do so is electrum.
If you are interested to know how you can make a transaction without the private key touching the internet, you can read the following guide. It should help you know the correct use of a paper wallet.

How to spend from an offline paper wallet using Electrum

You are right. They all do exist.


No one is capable to do so.
There are around 2²⁵⁶ valid private keys and around 2²⁵⁶ valid public keys. It's not possible to generate even 1 trillionth of them, let alone all of them.

It's not that all private keys and all public keys have already been generated and are kept somewhere.  

Any private key is a 256 bit number (or a 64 character number in hexadecimal format). In other words, almost any integer between 1 and 2²⁵⁶ is a valid private key.
Once you request a tool like bitaddress to give you a private key and an address, it generates a random number between 1 and 2²⁵⁶, do some calculations and gives you the private key in WIF format.

Note that the 256 bit space is large enough and it's not possible to generate a private key that has already been generated by someone else.
So, if you generate a private key using a secure tool in a secure device, you can be sure that you are the only owner of that private key.

First of all, note that the size of a transaction doesn't depend on the amount you send. The size depends on number of inputs and outputs and that should be displayed before broadcasting the transaction.  
Also, what matters is the size in vbyte, not byte.

Let me explain inputs and outputs with an example.
Assume that you have received the 1 bitcoin in 10 transactions and you want to spend all the 1 bitcoin. Now you have 10 inputs.

Number of outputs equals to number of recipients. Assuming you want to send the 1 bitcoin to 5 different addresses in a single transaction, you have 5 outputs.
In the case you send all the fund to a single address, you have 1 output.

If you are interested to know how number of inputs and outputs can affect the size of a transaction, I recommend you to  click here and use the tool created by a forum user, bitmover to calculate the size of your transaction.

Set the address format to P2PKH if your address(es) start with 1.
Set the address format to P2SH, if your address(es) start with 3. *
Set the address format to Bech32, if your address(es) start with bc1.


*Multi-signature addresses can start with 3 as well. But I don't think that's your case here.

Both are close source and I wouldn't recommend them.

In 2019, Coinomi was sending users seed phrase to google servers. (Click here to see how that vulnerability caused a user to lose his money)
Although they have solved the issue, but that's a good example showing why you shouldn't trust close source wallets.

I think that's the best option in Armory.

As I already said in my previous post, I would prefer P2SH-P2WPKH addresses over legacy addresses, because I would be able to make cheaper transactions.
And I would prefer P2SH-P2WPKH addresses over P2SH-P2PK addresses, because it's not possible to spend from P2SH-P2PK addresses without Armory.


Native segwit addresses.
If you use native segwit addresses, the transaction fee would be lower even compared to nested segwit addresses.

If you insist on using Armory for any reason, you can't use native segwit addresses and in my opinion P2SH-P2WPKH is the best option for you.

The page did exist in 2011 and doesn't exist now. This is already mentioned by HCP.

It is not safe to put any fund in a custodial wallet even for a second let alone 10 years.
As mentioned multiple times, your fund is gone and there is no way to receive that. Forget that 56 dollar and if you are still interested in bitcoin, learn the lesson and from now, use a secure non-custodial wallet. In this way, you will be the real owner of your fund and will never experience such issues.