It will eventually but it's very hard to predict the mempool.
For now, I can only tell that it's looking good and the number of unconfirmed transactions has been decreasing from 29,000 when you started this thread to 24,000.

The priority fee also fell down to 25 sat/B.

Is it encrypted?
If it isn't, just open a copy of the wallet file using a text editor and you should see the seed or a master private key.

Seed should look like this (just a sample, do not import, do not post yours either):
Master private key looks like this:

---

If it's encrypted and you know the passphrase, click on "Wallet->Seed", type your passphrase then the seed will be displayed.
Then create a new wallet "File->New/Restore", type a wallet name then click next, select "Standard wallet->I already have a seed".

It's recommended to do all of those while offline.

---

-edit-
If any of the above didn't worked, try to import it to 'Electrum 1.8.1 portable' just to export the seed phrase since you'll only see string of characters as seed in the text file (for old wallet files).

Download 1.8.1 portable from here: https://download.electrum.org/ or go to https://electrum.org/#download and click "Previous releases".
Copy the wallet file in the same directory as the Electrum portable executable and rename it into electrum.dat.
Open Electrum 1.8.1, click "Wallet->Show->Seed", then import that to the latest version.

Lastly, even old Electrum wallets or even electrum.dat from electrum should open without issues to v3.3.8 (I've just tried it and it worked).
But the seed written in the wallet file won't be updated to mnemonics, you have to export it through console/GUI.

That sounds like a bogus transaction accelerator that rebroadcasts transaction instead of "mining" it; the keyword is "sent to 10 nodes".
Nodes automatically do that and it's unnecessary whatever their reason is.

The problem is it's ineligible for the free legit one that I know that actually accelerates txs (viabtc) because it's 0.241 satoshi short from the minimum 10sat/B fee rate.

As of now, the priority fee is 40Sat/B.
Next time, if you saw that the recommended fee in the slider is quite high, set your transaction to at least 10sat/B so you can accelerate it through viabtc accelerator.

---

-edit-
Look like I'm right, re-broadcasting your TX wont help unless it didn't propagate well which has never been the case for "stuck" transactions.

This is kinda positive sign; if there's no transaction history, then the 0 balance must be because your wallet isn't updated in their server.
That's a very common problem with blockchain.com, unless you have logged-in to a phishing/fake site.

Have you also checked the drop-down menu beside the "BTC balance"? You can select your Bitcoin wallets there individually.
If you only have one wallet, then it must be the first issue that I've mentioned.

Contact their support or wait it out (it will be faster if you contact them).
If you need to ease your fear, check the balance of your known address from "Settings->Wallets and Addresses->(wallet name)Manage",
click each of them and you'll be redirected to their blockexplorer.

As much as possible, select AES-256 encryption for you encrypted rar, save it offline in a flash-drive and have a (physical) written copy.
If you want to save it online for personal reasons, choose your storage wisely, but it's not recommended.

Silly question.
Even if you put it in a fridge (theoretically) it won't run cold since the chips themselves will produce more than enough heat to fight the external cold temp.

Too much airflow won't cool-down a room that much anyways.

---

You can copy mikeywith's mining farm set-up: My "mini" mining farms , set up + wiring

You can send payments from BTCPay Wallet (if you're using a Hardware Wallet) or the main wallet where the xpub was extracted from.

---

The hardest requirement to fulfill is the 1m+ address which is only possible with Bitcoin Core (req. the whole blockchain).
Electrum will struggle to sync the wallet's transactions, don't know if their own BTCPay Wallet and Wasabi can.

If BTCPay Wallet can handle all those addresses: Purchase a Hardware wallet instead.

For Bitcoin Core: There's no official documentation to connect Bitcoin Core to BTCPay: docs.btcpayserver.org/getting-started/connectwallet
But since it only requires the main wallet's master public key, it's possible to connect it to Core.

If this is true: whale-alert link, then that belongs to Coinbase.
Because the address: 3FePstQL8Nudkd182D7KAEF29rCTadpN5q belongs to that wallet.

The second the third post are both true, 00000dd86b is Coins.ph.
But it may not be exclusive to Philippines, Coins operate in other countries too, aside from '.ph' they also have '.co.th', '.id', '.my' and '.vn'.

Then what's the actual issue?
Setting a very low fee won't be a threat unless you're the receiver, paying something that has a deadline or you're in a hurry.

But based from that ambiguous underlined phrase (from my quote), it sounds like he's trying to send BTC but someone already 'sent' the payment without his consent and the error indicated that the inputs were spent.
Try to rephrase that part that will make sense.

You'll get that "-26 error" if there is an input(s) in your transaction that's already spent.

So that person must be the sender and based from the context, there's another person who's in control of his wallet, private keys or seed phrase.
Like what I've said above, someone has already spent the input(s) that he's trying to spend.
It doesn't look like because of the fee, it's more a spending "race" between that user and the hacker, he broadcast late.

How can you avoid it? Triple your security, start by not using online wallets.
BTW, where's the link to that "report" so I can judge if it's something you should get worked up with?

I recognize that reply, that was posted in a Technical Discussion thread.
As far as I can remember, your suggestion was at the second or next pages, already tried by the OP or was posted without taking the previous replies in account.

By context, there's nothing wrong with it but it didn't add anything to the topic.

Disclaimer: I'm not the one who reported that post.

---

-Edit-
Found it: (modlog) "Delete reply: Re: Is it dangerous to load other people's wallet files in the Bitcoin client? in topic #5241531 by member #964385"
It was posted here: /index.php?topic=5241531.0, so it's off-topic.

I was about to suggest the same thing but Pmalek already did.

BTW, here's the link for all the BBCODE the forum supports: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=help;page=post#references
Everything should work except: Marquee and Insert Flash.

Electrum in Google play (v3.3.7) is one-release outdated than the one in the official site: https://electrum.org/#download.
You're going to miss the bugfixes and performance issues included in the latest release (v3.3.8) [release notes].
So if you prefer Electrum over Bitcoin Wallet, download the latest version from the site instead.

I can't comment on the other option, I haven't used it.

For the record, blockchain.info had been using that mnemonic log-in info backup even before BIP39 was introduced in 2013.
So it's not actually reasonable to blame their old mnemonics for following something that didn't exist yet.
Their late implementation of BIP39 seeds is one problem though; not to mention (bec. off-topic), late native SegWit blockexplorer support.

That's a valid BIP39 seed.

Really? Is it that hard to manually move the text files instead of automating it?  
Ok, just add this line to the batch file's first three lines and %directory% after each %output%, it should look like this:

Make sure that 'test' folder under C:\ is already existing or it will fail to write.

Nobody said that it's impossible, it's just very very low.
However, your example used MD5 hash algorithm that only has 2^128 possible outputs, prone to collision attacks and collisions were already discovered.
In comparison, Bitcoin uses SHA-256 which has a lot larger output size of 2^256, no easy attack vector [specially SHA-256d (double) used by Bitcoin's POW] and currently no recorded collision.

If that happened, then the network wont bother since it's the same block  

Two miners can't have the same hash of their constructed block header unless they also have the same coinbase transaction (the "block reward") or it's a SHA-256 collision.
Why? The coinbase transaction will also be used together with the TXs to make the 'hashMerkleRoot' that's in the block header;
SHA-256 has a very-very-very huge number of possible outputs, two different inputs will only have the same hash if they are exactly the same or there's a collision.

-edit- Noticed that it's the same answer as hatshepsut93's, removed and added something else.

What you wan't to know is when two different blocks were mined at the same time, then there will be a fork that could create a temporary alternate chain.
If you already got 'Mastering Bitcoin', re-read page 200-204.

Auditing an app accurately without looking at the code is impossible,
all the user can do it so look for suspicious activity beyond the app's functions, and that can't be done by newbies either.

Since you're looking for a reputable tool that uses SSS, check iancoleman's:
GitHub: https://github.com/iancoleman/shamir
Online:  https://iancoleman.io/shamir/

That can double as a verify-er as well.

I've checked the source of your own coinb.in and confirmed that all the necessary javascript are there, but you seem to have removed the whole "Donation" element.
That small edit had impacted the code for the transaction generation.

I have also successfully reproduced the issue by removing the same element.
And solved the issue by just hiding the element instead of removing it:

Just add this in the element of that donation amount:
Then edit the default value to "0".
If you wan't to totally disable it, tinker with the the javascript(s), it's your site.

He's started another thread regarding a problem with coinb.in that might be related because the address with issue starts with '3' (which could be a P2WPKH-P2SH).
If that's the main problem, he still hasn't solved this.

It's in the web wallets board: Trouble with Coinb.in Wallet