https://bitcoin.org/en/choose-your-wallet

• Bitcoin Core=> you can pick your own fees
• Bitcoin Knots=> you can pick your own fees
• Bitcoin Wallet=> you can pick your own fees
• breadwallet=> you can pick your own fees
• Bither=> no
• GreenBits
• GreenAddress=> you can pick your own fees
• Coinomi=> no
• Coin.Space => no idear
• Simple Bitcoin Wallet=> no idear
• MultiBit HD=> no
• Armory=> you can pick your own fees

Personally, i find electrum's gui to be rather good in the bitcoin world. If you want an SPV HD wallet that's even more new user friendly, multibit HD should do the trick, but this wallet doesn't allow you to change the fee (IIRC)

This was true in the past, but nowadays, only very few miners still reserve space in their blocks for high priority transactions.

Here's a full analysis, as well as possible sollutions:
https://www.mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=76e8ba354b6ad26a6af7124a0f3f66a66708865953db6634b4d018e279463301

Bottom line: the wallet you used added a fee of ~120 satosi's/byte, while at the time of writing, my wallet would recommand a fee of at least 180 satoshi's/byte if you want a 95% chance of getting a confirmation within 30 minutes. https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ even recommends 220 sat/byte. So, in hindsight, your wallet *should* have added twice the fee it used, but since it your wallet didn't use opt-in RBF to create the transaction, it's to late to change it now.

The good news is that 120 sat/byte is not so low that it's a hopeless situation... https://bitcoinfees.21.co/ estimates the average waiting time for this fee to be <~1440 minutes at the time of writing.
120 sat/byte will also allow you to use viabtc's txaccelerator (link to the tool can be found by following the link i posted at the top of this post)

If you post your txid, i'll have a look...

Do you want me to take a look at what went wrong, maybe help you try to avoid the same problem in the future, or did you just wanted to vent after waiting 8 hours for a confirmation? (which i totally understand).
If you want me to take a look at what went wrong, i'd need a tx id.

IIRC, electrum's minimal fee is 0.000005 (~0.6 cent). Using this fee, even with a very small transaction, this is only 2-3 sat/byte... Using such a low fee will give you allmost no chance of being added to a block, and a lot of nodes will reject your transaction due to to low fee.

If you want an even lower fee (or no fee at all), you can even manually create and sign a raw transaction using bitcoin-cli or the debug window of bitcoin-qt. If you do this, chances of being added to a block are even lower than with the minimal 500 satoshi's of electrum, and even more nodes will reject your transaction.

Remember: fees are not something you pay to the creator of the wallet (except in some very rare cases like old multibit HD wallets). You pay a fee per byte of transaction data to persuade a miner to put your transaction into the block he's currently mining on, instead of chosing a different transaction.
The higher the fee, the more chance the miners will favour your transactions... Since 0 fee or very low fee transactions have allmost no chance of being added to a block, a lot of nodes just reject them.

I have never used bitbargain myself, but you're talking about a bitcoin transaction, right?
Can you post the transaction id?

Well, it basically means that my node didn't drop your transaction from it's mempool... But my node is a special case, since i don't use the default mempool settings on my node (i keep transactions for 10 days). This does not mean that other nodes didn't drop your transaction... But usually, it's indeed not usefull to re-broadcast a transaction that has been initially broadcasted less than 3 days ago.

there is no limit, a paper wallet usually just shows your (wif compressed) private key and your address (which is basically a hash of your private key).
you can create as much transactions whose outputs can be spent by the owner of the address, you can theoretically send all DOGE ever mined (minus the coinbase in the very first block) to your paper wallet without consequences (besides the doge market would probably collapse if you were the only one holding DOGE)

As far as i can tell, you created a tx in tails with insufficient fees, the output of the transaction went to a second wallet.
Since you were the receiver from the standpoint of the second wallet, the only thing you could do is creating a CPFP. In order to do so, the wallet would have used the output it got from the transaction generated by the tail's wallet as an input for a second transaction. The fee for the second transaction should have been sufficient to cover the first and the second transaction. However, you missed and broadcasted a CPFP transaction that didn't include a fee that was sufficient to cover both transactions.

Since you said you tried to bump the fee, i can only suppose the CPFP transaction was opt-in RBF, bumping the fee in an opt-in RBF transaction means that your wallet will use the same inputs and will generate outputs to the same addresses as the original transaction, but it will subtract more miners fees from one of your outputs.

I suppose this error message means (i could be wrong here) that looking at the original opt-in RBF transaction's inputs and outputs, it couldn't find a technical way of adding more fees when it could only use this fixed inputs and still had to generate outputs to the same addresses. Since the transaction has to use the same inputs as the original one, it doesn't matter if you wallet had enough funds, most of the inputs to your wallet's addresses weren't used in the opt-in RBF transaction, so they can not be used to bump the fee.

However, you could still manually create a transaction doing allmost the same as an RBF, but using extra inputs to cover the fee, or change the addresses that could spend the outputs, since an RBF is just a nice implementation of double spending the unconfirmed inputs... Doing this would be a little bit harder, and would require several steps and some technical knowledge tough...

yes, if you wait long enough, most nodes on the network will eventually drop both transactions from their mempool, and you should be able to re-create the original transaction with the same inputs.

There are many other options to get your transaction into a block:
https://www.mocacinno.com/feecheck.php?txid=0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70

For example, you could use viabtc, pay a miner, double spend the inputs for the transaction into a new transaction with a higher fee, double spend the inputs you used for the CPFP but leave a higher fee,...

Since you're sending between your own wallets, i'd personally try to create a brand new transaction using all or most of the inputs you used for transaction 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70. This would cause a double spend, and once the new transaction with a higher fee makes it into a block, transaction 0cf4b23dc1fab5ca38a497498947ed76de184b077618419802ed456c4e3e9d70 will be using inputs that are no longer in the UTXO, thus it will be voided.
This will cause your CPFP tx to be voided to, since it relies on outputs from the previous tx.

This way, i think the end result would be a bit cleaner, plus you won't have to pay the fees  twice, plus you won't take up unneccesary space in a block.

Offcourse, waiting will work to... The tx will either be dropped from the mempool of most nodes, or some miner will decide to add you to the block he is currently working on, and with a bit of luck, the transaction(s) might actually confirm...

I can only tell you things out of personal experiences i had a long time ago... Maybe recently the test network is more stable, i couldn't tell you, but a long time ago, i personally didn't think it was all that stable.
AFAIK, the test network is constantly getting used for all kinds of tests, protocol tests, asicboost, spam attacks, segwit, LN,... Combine this with a lower node count and fluctuating hashrate... Maybe i'm wrong, this is just my gut feeling after using it for my own education a longer time ago.

But as far as development goes, if you use outputs that have been in the UTXO set for a long time, coming from transactions that made it into blocks a long time ago, you should be able to use the test network for development purposes, especially if you run bitcoind -testnet, since you'd be using only your own node when developing. AFAIK, electrum connects to 8 nodes, and can potentially switch the main node each time you connect, so if one of the 8 nodes has more or less blocks, a completely different UTXO set, a different mempool,... Things might seems strange. You don't have this problem if you run your own node, since that would be the only place where you look for transactions, blocks, mempool entries, utxo,...

Without power costs, they make $111/year at current diff, block reward and btc price.
I strongly believe that the diff will rise, i'm not sure if the price will rise to tough...
http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00

If we factor in a small power price of 5 cents/kwu, it'll cost a miner about $160/year to run these machines while only make $111/year in btc (and dropping).
http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0.05&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00

The current break even power price seems to be 3 cents/kwu or less... It'll even drop further in the future as the diff goes up. If you pay more than 3 cents/kwu, you'll lose money while mining, if you pay 3 cents you'll make $14/year profit at current network conditions and price...
http://www.coinwarz.com/calculators/bitcoin-mining-calculator/?h=450.00&p=366.00&pc=0.03&pf=0.50&d=521974519553.62800000&r=12.50000000&er=1408.60000000&hc=0.00

Long story short, i (and maybe other people) would be willing to buy these S3's (if they are in good condition) either as a toy to tinker with, an educational tool, a conversation starter, part of a collection, or as a loud space heater... Either way, i wouldn't give more than $10-$15 for one piece, escrow and shipping included. If i'd buy 4 or 5, i'd even expect a discount.

I'm happy for you that things got resolved, but the explanation the sender gave you doesn't seem right...
There was/is nothing *wrong* with the network... He just created a chain of unconfirmed transactions, and then started double spending outputs he already used as input for different transactions... This is an error made by the sender, or at least by his wallet... He shouldn't try to pass the blame to the protocol, he should just admit he was using an old wallet, or some buggy software that used json-rpc querys to bitcoind that went haywire, or maybe he was testing some stuff or something.
Just my opinion tough.

Well, all i can say is that i personally used the test network for educational purposes, and i did think it wasn't that stable, the nodes don't seem to rely blocks that efficient or something... I didn't investigate the root cause, but the end result was that sometimes blocks and transactions seemed to take a really long time to propagate trough the network (no proof tough).

This error basically says that one node has an output in it's utxo set that can be spent by an address your wallet manages, so you have used this output as input when you created your transaction, but when you wanted to broadcast the transaction, you sent it to a node that didn't have the input in it's utxo set.

Basically, i think that waiting a couple of days *MIGHT* fix the problem... Just remember that you probably didn't do anything wrong (i haven't seen this error on the main net yet), and you're working on the testnetwork, so expect people to do weird things on this network

In the history tab, right click on a transaction, go to details...
Here, you should see a list of inputs and outputs, the number of confirmations, the broadcast date, the amount that was sent, the size, the fee and the tx id.

In this details-tab, you could click on "save", and save the raw, signed transaction. The default extention will be .txn, but it's just an ascii file you can open with gedit, nano, vi, notepad, wordpad,...
In this file txn, you'll find the hex (between quotes). If you copy this hex, and paste it on my transaction decoder: http://www.mocacinno.com/page/rawdecode you can decode the transaction online, and see all details you ever wanted to know (txid, hash, size, vsize, version, loctime, all details about the inputs, all details about the outputs, sequences,...)

Same story with my wife, but i'm lucky to have a daughter that finds crypto currency rather interesting. Started her off with some DOGEcoin (since they were really cheap) on an android wallet... Moved up to a self-funded monero coin (thanks smoothie) which she loves and keeps around her room to show off.

Now, i've given her my old ledger HW.1 (bought a new ledger nano S for myself), and i'm paying her in BTC when she does some (very small) chores around the house and when she gets good grades (acutally, i accumulate these earnings untill she has $50, and then i pay her these $50 in one go).

Conclusion: when i die, i hope my kid will know what to do with my ledger nano S (it has a pincode my wife knows btw)...

no,

when your wallet creates a transaction (when you send funds), the last (automatic) step is broadcasting the raw, signed transaction to the network. To re-broadcast a transaction, all you need is this signed, raw transaction that was originally created by your wallet... Finding this transaction differs from situation to situation... For example, if the transaction is unconfirmed, and it resides in my node's mempool, you can use this wizard to find the raw, signed transaction:
http://www.mocacinno.com/page/getraw

Just copy an unconfirmed tx's id in the form, and click on "get the raw transaction", and you'll be shown the raw, signed transaction (if the tx in question is in my mempool!!!) which you can rebroadcast with any of the following online wizards:
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction_broadcasting
or you can push it to my node:
http://www.mocacinno.com/page/txpusher

I'd rather point you directly to the github repo of the coin in question

https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors
https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors
https://github.com/dashpay/dash/tree/master/contrib/gitian-descriptors
...

There were some better tutorials out there, but last time i just followed the howto directly from the bitcoin github repo and i got everything up and running in a very short time...
If it's the first time you do a gitian build, i'd recommend following the tutorial to the letter (including the same virtualbox, debian,... versions).

To answer your second question: i would recommand running debian or ubuntu on a VM, like you said

Good luck!

you can use the board's search function to answer your question:
https://cse.google.com/cse?cx=016660200577587308545%3Aesf40ml9aag&ie=UTF-8&q=%5BWTS%5D+localbitcoins&sa=Google+search#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=%5BWTS%5D%20localbitcoins&gsc.page=1

short answer: yes, you can