No, you can't. You can sign a transaction offline only with specific reference to previous transactions which create the UTXOs you want to spend. As soon as those UTXOs are spent, then it does not matter what other coins are present on the address(es) in question. Previously confirmed transactions will not be valid again because the specific UTXOs they spend have been spent.

If it were possible to rebroadcast a transaction and take more bitcoin from the same address, then anyone who withdrew anything from a centralized exchange's hot wallet could just rebroadcast their withdrawal transaction over and over and over until the hot wallet was empty. Obviously this doesn't happen.

Says who? Have you personally audited their security systems? Has any third party audited their security systems?

The fact is that many many crypto based companies, from tiny marketing agencies through to the largest centralized exchanges, have absolutely awful security, which is borne out in frequent hacks of both coins and personal information. As soon as you hand any coin or any piece of information over to any third party, then that coin or piece of information is at risk of theft, regardless of how big or reputable you think that third party is.

Do you not know if you own 0.4 or 0.72 BTC? Can you look back on all your old purchases/trades and figure out which one is the accurate value?

Also note that Ledger Live is showing your native segwit account only. Have you checked your legacy or your nested segwit accounts too?

"Recent market conditions". Just another way of saying "We made ridiculously risky investments/loans/gambles". My bitcoin is going through the exact same market conditions but I haven't lost a single satoshi because I didn't make stupid gambles.

Same nonsense we saw/see with altcoins, ICOs, IEOs, NFTs, DeFi, etc, etc, etc. Next shiny thing comes along promising obviously bullshit returns, bunch of newbies lose money. Rinse and repeat with some new buzzwords.

Or perhaps instead of screwing up the entire cryptocurrency space with scam after scam and thereby enforcing governments to swoop in regulate everything they can get their grubby fingers on, we could just stop throwing money at these obvious scams?

Indeed. When the average user does not understand the importance of protecting their privacy, it is unfortunate. When a so called privacy wallet does not understand the importance of protecting privacy and advertises themselves on lies and deliberately misleading information, it is a scam.

I unhid franky1's post exactly because I was sure it would prove the point being discussed here, and he did not disappoint:
Perfect example. "If you want privacy, it's clearly because you are trying to get away with a crime." Of course. There is no other reason to want privacy than if you are trying to hide a crime. That's why everyone walks through airports naked. Why would you need clothes unless you are trying to smuggle something across borders? That's why all emails ever sent are publicly published to a central database that anyone can read. Why would you need email privacy unless you are trying to commit a crime? That's why franky1 posts under his real name and address and not a pseudonym, right? Why do you need privacy, franky1? What are you trying to hide?

Take a look at this post as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/vy84rw/3ac_borrowed_millions_from_voyagerblockfi_user/

3AC didn't just gamble on GBTC; they also gambled on NFTs. They spent more than $2 million at the time on individual NFTs, including such priceless NFTs as pictures of DickButt. The fact that places like Celsius and Voyager lent enormous sums to 3AC to gamble on such stupidity is nothing short of a scam.

To be fair, there were many of us who spent months or even years warning people that these ridiculous returns were obviously unsustainable and the whole thing would collapse eventually. We were ignored, obviously, because "20% gains oh em gee!"

No one. There is no requirement for this to be done in secret, and indeed, doing it in secret makes it less likely the real owner will find you. The chances of someone tracking down the real owner via blockchain analysis is much smaller than the chance of the real owner finding you after you publish the address in a public forum such as this one.

I've had many users over the years contact me privately after I helped them out in a thread, asking for more advice or even offering to share things like scrambled seed phrases or partial private keys asking me to help them brute force them. My response is always the same - far better for both parties to keep the discussions public, so the other party can get opinions from other forum users on the things I tell them and can verify I'm not trying to scam, and so that I cannot be accused of scamming them in private.

Sharing the address does not allow anyone else to attempt to steal the coins, so you should start there. If you want to proceed to creating an OP_RETURN output as has been suggested in this thread, then I or someone else can create a transaction for you which can be verified by other users so all you have to do is sign it with the private key. And again, we can publicly talk you through the steps to do that. Doing all this publicly is far safer than you sharing the private key with someone on this forum, even someone well trusted.

You sure? Chainanalysis can de-mix Wasabi coinjoins, and Wasabi is pretty much infamous for it's flawed address reuse and combining of coinjoined and uncoinjoined outputs.

A wallet which is actively censoring some outputs cannot be called "censorship resistant". And Electrum is not a privacy wallet and makes no claims in regards to privacy.

Wasabi are contributing nothing to fungibility. They are actively hurting it.

Given that you are a brand new account which is simply repeating all the now thoroughly debunked Wasabi talking points, I question who is actually behind this account.

I am fairly certain that most of the people behind Wasabi don't believe many of the things they are saying:

Just to address this point: So do I. You are well aware that I have argued long and hard against nonsensical statements such as that anyone who has the slightest interest in maintaining some financial privacy must be a criminal, terrorist, money launderer, or what have you.

However, given that nopara73 has consistently and repeatedly failed to answer basic questions as to how he thinks blacklisting and censorship is somehow beneficial to fungibility, has consistently and repeatedly demonstrated that he believes in taint and taint analysis, and is building a product specifically designed to cater only to those good little citizens with "nothing to hide", an answer to a basic question using his own preferred terminology might be more forthcoming.

And I'm sure if you did that then lots of those paper wallets would be found and emptied of all their funds. That doesn't make it any less morally wrong for someone to empty a random wallet they find, unless you leave specific instructions on the wallet that you are giving permission to whoever finds it to empty that wallet.

If a burglar breaks in to my house and steals everything I own, it doesn't matter whether I blame them for doing it or I blame myself for not boarding up all my windows and doors. It is theft and it is morally wrong.

The fact is that emptying a paper wallet which is not yours is theft. Opinions on taxation are irrelevant.

As with all things privacy related. People are happy to let Amazon and Google record every single word that is spoken inside their house, provided it means they can play a song without having to press like 3 buttons on their phone. They will of course be happy to transition away from cash if it means some 1% reward on their spending.

People have always been happy to trade their privacy for the slightest convenience. This is why we need both education as well as privacy enforcement at the protocol level.

Which everyone seems to understand without a second though when it comes to fiat, but for some reason when it comes to bitcoin people start defending the ridiculous privacy invasion and stealing of coins which is practiced by centralized exchanges. I've never understood why, other than they just mindlessly by in to the government propaganda without question.

But there is no reason to use Brave for either of reasons. Firefox is better option for almost everything. You can use container tabs or separate profiles to keep different usages of Firefox separate. If you really want, you can install Firefox more than once, or install different versions of Firefox (default, beta, developer, etc.) or even run a separate instance of Firefox in a VM to keep some use completely separate from other uses, and allow you to have a very hardened version of Firefox with appropriate browser extensions as well as a completely basic and out-of-the-box version of Firefox too.

And if you really need a Chromium based browser for a specific task, then as I've said before, Ungoogled Chromium is the best option.

2¹²⁸ is not half of 2²⁵⁶.

Half of 2²⁵⁶ is 2²⁵⁵. 2¹²⁸ is 2¹²⁸ times smaller than 2²⁵⁶. This is obviously exponentially smaller than just halving, but still orders of magnitude beyond what will ever be realistically possible to crack.

Maybe you are making some bitcoins fungible, but you are not making Bitcoin fungible. If anything, you are actively working against Bitcoin fungibility by enforcing taint and directly funding blockchain analysis.

For carefully selected outputs which are already treated as fungible by your blockchain analysis partners. To paraphrase someone from Twitter: What good is a washing machine which only washes clean clothes?

Because profits are more important than philosophies.

The hypocrisy is as I explained above. They can already control fiat, so no need for taint analysis. They cannot control bitcoin, so better make up arbitrary nonsense to scare people in to submission.

Is it, though? There is nothing in the bitcoin code which gives anyone the ability to enforce taint or otherwise censor your outputs. Taint is only enforceable because of centralized services which have complete control over all deposits to their platforms. If everyone changed their behavior and stopped using centralized platforms, taint wouldn't exist. That makes the enforcement of taint, at least partially, an anthropological problem. Which is why I continue to advocate for education, and not just technical changes.

Yeah, that's the kicker. If the default bitcoin wallet at m/44'/0'/0' was never used, then the search will return no results. OP would have to try other derivation paths, and then potentially other coins. btcrecover does also recover seed phrases using major alts such as Ethereum and Litecoin, but OP would need an address database for each one and would have to exhaust the entire search space multiple times over.

The only wallet I would use for such a task would be a hardware wallet. I'm not aware of any multi-coin software wallet which is open source and reputable.

Not beer; Scotch whisky.

---

The real answer here is achow101. As the only Core maintainer with an active presence here, he is probably the most influential person here in terms of bitcoin's development and future.

Math.

The sheer size of the numbers we are dealing with here are incomprehensible. You are wondering about a single person or a single machine generating millions of seed phrases a second. Let's take that to the extreme. Let's say every single one of the 8 billion people in the entire world are generating and checking a billion seed phrases a second, and they all keep doing that for the next 1 million years. In that entire time, the entirety of the human race will have checked approximately 0.00000074% of all possible 12 word seed phrases.

So feel free to set up your computer to generate as many seed phrases as possible from now until the day you die. You will generate billions or even trillions of empty seed phrases, which will be akin to a single grain of sand from all the beaches on the planet.

Now, I'll preface this reply by restating that I don't know much about altcoins because >99% are outright scams as far as I am concerned, but I still think it is very common that people reuse the same seed phrase across multiple coins.

If you use a multi-coin mobile wallet as many people do, such as Coinomi, then you get one seed phrase across all your coins. If you use a hardware wallet, then you get one seed phrase across all your coins. I think it would only be if someone downloaded and used separate wallets for every coin (which I suspect very few people do) that someone would have different seed phrases for each coin.

Blockstream Green used to be known as GreenAddress until Blockstream acquired it and made it their own. I think the difference here between this and whatever Block are making is that Blockstream are open that they only hold one key and therefore cannot access your funds. If you lose your other two keys, then you lose your wallet. This is obviously in contrast to Block, who say if you lose your other two keys then they can somehow manage to recover them.

In terms of your question about mobile wallets, I would just stick to Electrum. If you want to use it easily but not very privately, just install and run. If you want to go a bit more technical but a lot more private, point it towards your own Electrum server.