Too bad, you won't be able to use that wallet file to 3.3.8 unless you have a backup or create another copy (which is easy).

It seems like it was an issue of compatibly with a certain Trezor firmware version:
https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/6214 Read the replies to the issue for more info.

There's no pros when you lost your 2FA code/device  
If it's the pros and cons of using 2FA, then I'll add another that wasn't mentioned here:
Since it's a 2/3 multisig address, your transactions will be larger in size which will make your overall transaction fee (mining fee) higher than a non-multisig Electrum wallet.

For example:
"1in-2out" (1 input, 2 outputs) TXs created by a Legacy Electrum wallet will have an average of 220vB in size.
An average legacy multisig Electrum wallet's 1in-2out transaction would be 370vB; 210vB for SegWit multisig.
While it's 150vB in average for native SegWit.
The difference isn't much for 1sat/B tx fee rate or for a 1-input transaction,
but if you need to pay 50sat/B+ or have to use more inputs, the difference will be consequential.

TL;DL: That said, at least create a SegWit Multisig wallet instead of the legacy one to save transaction fees.
But just like regular SegWit addresses, some services and exchanges still don't support them.

You said your last Electrum version "was" 3.3.2, so have you upgraded to the latest version?
If yes, don't sweat the server selection, bad servers can only block your transaction broadcast at worst, the message will be a generic error msg.
If you want, you can use electrum.blockstream.info:50002 as server, that is 100% surely isn't a phishing server but I can't vouch for the privacy part.

A re-post, I see.
Perhaps I should edit it as "represented as HEX by most tools" to clear things up, thanks.
That part of the reply is based from Blackhatcoiner's previous post that mistakenly identified the 'private key in hex' as hash because hexadecimal outputs are most likely what he's been seeing in hashing tools.

Actually, the version can be changed without generating an invalid block.
That's what miners with "Overt ASICBOOST" has been exploiting to get an extra nonce without the need to recompute for a new merkle root.

AFAIK, that option was removed in the latest versions, I too can't see that option.

If it's newly launched/installed, your Electrum client will have to download the "block headers" from the connected nodes before it can be displayed as "online".
The whole file is now around 50,553kB, so that might have taken a short while to finish.

There's none because it's not feasible for a mobile processor to mine POW coins.
If you can find one that's being advertised as "miner", it's most likely a scam, faucet, a gimmick or both.
One example of those gimmick + faucet-like "mining app" was Electroneum app which acts as wallet with internal "fake" miner.
But now, they took away the 'ETN miner' feature.

If there's a legit one (sadly, I don't have any recommendations), it will take a lot of time to get a decent payout.

Most of them will perform a DOS attack to the connected old vulnerable client to keep it offline without error messages hoping for the user to upgrade to the latest version.
Reference: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/issues/5195#issuecomment-473157912
But since there's still a good chance that Electrum will connect to a "bad server" if server selection is set to automatic, these phishing incidents will still arise.

In the other hand, any "good servers" or clients can't blacklist "bad servers",
you can manually connect to good server that gets your client online though.

That message alone is harmless if you ignore it.
But you must upgrade before trying to send again since it will hard to find a good server that lets you connect.
It's not always recommended to use outdated software; whether it's Electrum or not.

Yes, the numbers in the derivation path have a meaning:
m / purpose' / coin' / account' / change / index

That gives the 3rd number as 'account' in BIP44/BIP49/BIP84:

• https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0044.mediawiki#Examples
• https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0049.mediawiki#Public_key_derivation
• https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0084.mediawiki#Public_key_derivation

Yes, that should do it. m/49'/0'/1' will derive the addresses/keys for the second account.

That's because Electrum won't automatically create a wallet based from the second or next accounts if you try to create another one unlike Ledger live.

Yes, it's only for one time for each channels.
When you successfully opened a channel, that should be enough to transact through LN multiple times until you run out of sending/receiving capacity.

You only need to close the channel when you want to get your bitcoins back to your on-chain funds.

There should be a "lock topic" button at the bottom-left side of the page to close this thread.

yeah, that did it, that's quite a transaction fee though.

You're in the same situation as this guy: Re: Bitcoin transaction pending for quite long,
it would take a very high transaction fee to CPFP it to 1mb-from-tip since there are 8 more parent transactions that are all unconfirmed with the same fee rate and vSize.
but at least you can bump that unconfirmed transaction group closer to the tip of the nodes' mempools.

Example: All 8 unconfirmed parent transactions (including your 2nd transaction) are all 166vBtes with 1699sat fee (10sat/vB).
If you CPFP with 100sat/byte and that transaction have 166 vBytes size (average).
The tx group will only have an effective fee rate of 20sat/vByte [30,192/1494=20], not enough for fast transaction at this moment.

That site must have been spending the unconfirmed change of the other clients' withdrawals creating a chain of unconfirmed transactions.
It's based from this: Your withdrawal transaction's input is the change of your other withdrawal transaction.
And if you perform CPFP to the first transaction in the OP (35c1ff29f.....), it will affect the second transaction.

It's more than just low transaction fee.

The parents that have much lower transaction fees are all unconfirmed and formed a long series of unconfirmed transactions.
You transaction can't be confirmed unless its parents get confirmed.

Here's the list of the first 7 including yours:

• 1. 8609f53cea4b37a77162281c0b57a80c3402bde602c0e53978c0ad41a865a81e - the TX in the OP, paying 24sat/vB
• 2. 204bbd04bff224833633f425def6b1ca116bb2d4b55765a84bde6667cbcd1345 - its parent transaction, paying 11sat/vB
• 3. 39e40a36f59d2e6384ddf62c89f2b0ce6ae7d5eb59a1f3fd2c6ee2d12acecdd4 - parent of the above tx, paying 9sat/vB
• 4. e5ead85d4bb866e423f351cb4b66d750427fe2e5a01728abc117ffec0278f42b - parent of the above tx, paying 7sat/vB
• 5. ddfbcac97f04672eae163837f304daa1036235c64bcbda8e99978715d90fd748 - parent of the above tx, paying 7sat/vB
• 6. 9ed4a9c934d6f3a6da78d59d8749d0ac90fc3663a30ca0641f38483090456749 - parent of the above tx, paying 6sat/vB
• 7. 2635c25cbafaf1cf2b7bbfafe4dc8c8498f9c56dd7760f9c9217d33dc118d1cc - parent of the above tx, paying 6sat/vB

And 1 more unconfirmed parent that has 4sat/vByte fee rate.

Try to compute the necessary TX fee using the post above but take the unconfirmed parent's vsize and fee in consideration.
I bet it'll take a huge fee for CPFP to work in your case, so [TL;DR] I'd suggest to just wait it out.

That should work since it's the same version but do not use it in your online machine.

So the "cold storage device" is another Electrum in an Air-gap machine...
It never happened to me aside from simple unnoticed typo.

If ever this is some sort of bug, you can use the "master private key" to restore the wallet to the new version (Standard->Use a master key).
You can get it in the console (View->Show console) though getmasterprivate() command.

Safer method: Since you already have the cold storage Electrum, exporting the "master public key" in the wallet information is good enough, it will create a watch-only wallet;
you can sign the transaction created using the online watch-only wallet using the cold storage by following this set-up:
https://electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html?highlight=usb#create-a-watching-only-version-of-your-wallet

Okay, it's grayed out if not ticked so the seed phrase must be invalid and it's not a BIP39 seed either because of the BIP39 checksum failed.
It is most likely another kind of seed from other wallets or it's also scrambled.

I'll restore old seeds from old Electrum versions to try reproduce this.
Although AFAIK, Electrum has been keeping backward compatibility with its seed phrase.

-Edit-

Seeds from old versions and not-so-old version works just fine in 4.0.2

Tick "BIP39 seed" in the options.
If it say "BIP39 (checksum: ok)", then it's another seed phrase and not generated by Electrum.

At least try to continue the wallet creation to check the seed phrase stored in that "cold storage device".

SS 2 and SS 3 are the same.

You don't need to go to "Buy/Sell Crypto" to move it to your default "My Bitcoin Wallet".
Refer to 'SS 1', the "send" window, just fill the "amount" in BTC to be exact (bec. fiat equivalent changes fast) then hit "continue".

If it suggested to use "max" and you can't continue, then click it.

Yes for ledger; and basically more than that, most hardware wallets will prompt you to "confirm" in the hardware device itself (to sign) a transaction in order to send it.

Hmm, that's weird, how come I can see that quoted text right now?
My dummy account is in my second tab and I'm looking at that feature that's turned on.

Here's the screenshot:


Maybe they kept it for old accounts, that's a bummer then.