Another user on this forum did have the same problem.
It seems like he was being able to get another 2FA code after emailing the trustedcoin support.
As long as you have access to an email associated with your account, you may be able to get another 2FA code.
It seems you only need access to the associated email to get another code. You can contact them here: https://api.trustedcoin.com/#/contact-us

Like Xynerise already mentioned how your privacy can get lost between several addresses when not taking care of the transactions created.
But myceliums wallets/accounts are independent from each other. Since you are not able to create a transaction using inputs from 2 different accounts of your mycelium app,
you won't be able to link them in one transaction. This keeps your BTC 'split'. Its foolproof. Just don't confuse your several HD wallets.

Where did you get your information from?
Ethereum is performing more transactions than bitcoin for quite some time now.
But Ripple is far far away from being near BTC's transactions count.
Additionally Dash, LTC and several more are performing more TX/s than ripple currently.

Take a look at this chart:

You can't get rid of the prompt.
Ledger wallets bitcoin chrome app is the UI for both chains, BTC and BCH.
You will be able to access both chains with any of those two apps opened (BTC/BCH). But you only will be able to spend from the chain, whose app you have opened on the nano S.
As far as im concerned there is no way to 'skip' this prompt when interacting with the chrome app.
You could switch to electrum[1] and use this as your interface. The security stays the same. The private keys don't leave your device and you have to manually approve transactions.

[1] https://electrum.org/#home

As HCP already mentioned, the moment you decrypt your USB it will get exposed to your pc and any malware on it.

Additionally, you should not rely too much on encryption by bitlocker. Please keep in mind.. its made by microsoft. We all know how good and safe windows is compared to linux..
If you want to rely on the software you use to encrypt your files, i would suggest you take a look at VeraCrypt (https://www.veracrypt.fr/en/Home.html).
They are the successor of TrueCrypt and are probably the most reliable.

A hardware wallet is not designed as a encrypted place of long term storage.
Its designed to be a completely secured device (wallet) which can be used for every-days transactions without going through a lot of hassle to access the functions of a wallet.

Did you try to remove an application before trying to reinstall the BTC app again?
It sounds strange, but sometimes there just isn't enough space on the nano s (even if you had the app installed already).
Just uninstall an application and try to install BTC app again. The amount of applications which can be installed at the same time on the nano s varys from 3 to 5.
This depends on the size of the application. The fido u2f app, for example, is one of the biggest.

Incase of a service provider (e.g. web wallet, .. ) double spending a transactions of yours this is because of one of the two reasons:
1) Its a pretty bad service provider who i) didn't calculate fees enough to get the transaction through in an appropiate amount of time and ii) doesn't keep track of his wallet how he should.
In this case you should contact your wallet provider and provide them the transaction ID's which has been double spent. They are the only one able to help you.

2) You are being scammed. He wanted to give you the impression of 'normal' payouts, but double spent them to his/their own wallet. You won't get your money back in this case.

In both cases i would avoid such a service. You should switch to a wallet which give you the full control (e.g. electrum[1]).



If the transactions show as double-spent they won't get through, ever.



[1] https://electrum.org/#home

You need to import the private key, not the address.
Importing the address into electrum creates a wacht-only wallet. In order to be able to spend funds from this address you need to import the private key.

To export your private keys: In blockchain.info's wallet go to 'Settings-> Addresses' and export the private key.
Afterwards you have to import this private key into electrum to be able to access your funds.



This doesn't matter. You just have to create a transaction with the same input ('send the same coins') , the output doesn't matter.

That means your transaction did not reach the minimum fee for other nodes to relay your transaction (0 fee because of 0 funds).
It was possible to get zero-fee transaction relayed (and confirmed) in the early times of BTC. But this probably won't ever be the case again.



Its not possible because you don't have any UTXO's (unspent transaction outputs). Read more here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Transaction#Input



You find the awnser in the first 2 chapter here: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining

Since you already found your transaction on a blockchain explorer you can easily obtain your ID from there.
The link to a tx is the following https://blockchain.info/tx/YOUR_TX_ID.
But if those blockchain explorer show your TX as confirmed, thats not the problem in this case.



If your BTC address doesn't show up in the signing tool, then it has not been generated by your ledger.



Do you mean your BTC address does show up under the LTC signing tool?
In that case it seems you have sent your BTC to a (unknown/foreign) address which is coinciding with your LTC address.
This would mean your BTC are lost, since its not possible to 'recover' those.
However, if thats not the case: Did you check you are using the right 'chain' (BTC/BCH/legacy/segwit) ?

It is irrelevant which address you are sending to.
If YOU are using a segwit address, your transactions will be lower in size (in comparison to sending from legacy).




The fee is usually being set as a rate (e.g. sat/B). As long as you send the same transaction (same amount of inputs/outputs - your wallet may have changed that),
the transaction size sent from a SegWit address will be lower than from a legacy address.




The easiest way of 'switching to SegWit' would be to simply send your whole balance to a (newly generated) SegWit wallet/address.
You don't have to first create another legacy wallet. That would just be an additional (unnecessary) transaction (incl. fees).
Just create a SegWit wallet and send your funds over. Depending on the amount of 'inputs' you have it might result in a pretty big TX (and high fees).
If you recieved a lot of small transactions, you might wait until the backlog of unconfirmed transactions has settled a bit (to not pay too much fees). [1]

[1] Currently 170k+ unconfirmed TX's (blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions) - Fee estimation: https://estimatefee.com/ and https://bitcoinfees.earn.com/

After the transaction from shapeshift has been sent they do not have any possibilities to access these coins anymore.
Generally, you have to export the private key of the recieving address and import it into a BCH wallet.
Which wallet did you use to recieve the BCH ? Did you recieve them on your Trezor?

The only way to 'export' your private keys out of trezor is to import the seed into a BIP39 compatible wallet/tool to get the private key of your desired address.
You can use this site: https://iancoleman.io/bip39/ to generate your private-/public- keys out of your seed.

But it is advisable to first move your coins out of your wallet and run the website on an offline machine!
You shouldn NOT be using the seed afterwards. It should be assumed your mnemonic seed is compromised once entered anywhere outside of your hardware wallet.

Segwit basically does one thing: It removes redundant data from the transaction, and therefore lowers the size.
You have the choice between native segwit (bech32, starting with bc1...) and P2WPKH nested into P2SH (starting with 3... ).
Legacy addresses are the 'original' addresses which were introduced first (starting with 1..).
P2WPKH/P2SH addresses have the advantage of lowering transaction size ~30% (compared to legacy).
Bech32 transations are even smaller, but unfortunately a lot of online services don't accept these address type yet.

Did you check whether the address which recieved the payouts does indeed have a balance?
You can check your address in a block explorer (e.g. https://www.blocktrail.com/BTC, https://live.blockcypher.com/btc/ or https://blockchain.info/.
If your address does 'contain' bitcoins you have to make sure that your wallet does hold the private key of this address.

You can use the listaddressgroupings command to list all addresses. Check whether your address is listed.
Or you can execute the listunspent command to list all unspent outputs (basically the 'coins you can send').

The only option to 'combine' unspent outputs is to make a transaction.

Unfortunately you won't be able to easily merge your UTXO's with the current backlog of transactions waiting to get confirmed.
You can either serach for a miner who will include your transaction for you or wait until the network congestion has settled down a bit. [1]
But this will still cost quite a lot of your whole balance. You might try to create a TX with 10+ sat/B fee and try your luck with viaBTC's accelerator.
They accelerate 100 tx/hour. You have to submit your TX within the first second(s) of a hour (https://pool.viabtc.com/tools/txaccelerator/).

[1] Currently there are 170k+ unconfirmed transactions (https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions)

Thats not completely true.
While its true that Windows (and android) are both operating systems with a lot of exploits / vulnerabilities, its also worth to note that the majority of users is using these OS.
90%+ of all malware is written for windows. Its true that you won't get 'infected' with the same probability as when using a windows system.
But the actual difficulty of creating malware for iOS is not that much different than for windows.




The wallet clients (itself) are usually not more secure on iOS than on windows/linux/..
Its the OS which makes the difference in this case.
I'd say in general (regarding the complete setup) iOS wallets are a bit more safe than windows wallets. But i'd still suggest linux over iOS.




It depends on the situation.
If you are holding medium amounts and browse the internet often, iOS might be the safer option.
But if you are the target of an aimed attack.. it doesn't make any difference.
If someone want to hack your PC (by knowing you have large amounts, whatsoever..) he will be able to do so regardless of which OS you are using.

No wallet is 100 % safe from being hacked. You just can't achieve full security.
There hasn't been any incidents yet where a ledger wallet got 'hacked'. While there has been found a vulnerability in the trezor wallet, ledger has been safe all the time.
Its alright to assume trezor/ledger hardware wallets are one of the safest way of storing btc's.



It is one of the safest wallet that exist.
The explanation is user not being able to understand whats happening.
That kind of verification of the change output is not necessary and had confused the non-techy people. Most people just don't know how transaction work (i.e. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Change).

Just because there hasn't been found a vulnerability in a wallet with a lower userbase, it doesn't mean those are safer than electrum..
You can move to another wallet. But the question is what you expect from this wallet.
A desktop wallet shouldn't be used to store larger amounts of money anway. It may be easier to exploit this vulnerability.. but generally its easy enough to get malware spread around.
So you should never consider your desktop wallet as a safe place to store cryptos. Electrum has a ton of features. Besides core i would not know which has such a variety of functions.
Its up to you which wallet you prefer. Electrum in combination with the nano s is an extremely safe way (not vulnerable in this situation) of storing btc and having a ton of features.

Version 3.0.5 got released about 13 hours ago, as a follow up to 3.0.4 (which mostly shut down the vulnerability) [1].
No way you got 3.0.5 for a long time now. You might verify the signature of your current version to exclude the possibility of a malicious application.

[1] Release notes: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/RELEASE-NOTES

The pro of segwit is: It makes transactions smaller.
While you still have to pay the same feerate (x sat/B), you will (overall) pay less for your transaction (about 20-30% for P2SH-P2WPKH addresses [starting with 3...] - and even more for bech32 [starting with bc1..].
You can basically think of segwit as the 'removal of redundant information'. This makes transactions smaller -> Fees lower.
Unfortunately bech32 aren't accepted for withdrawals from most of the exchanges yet. But you still can always recieve/send your funds!



I would suggest electrum (https://electrum.org/#download) as a light weight wallet with some quite impressive features. Electrum supports both types of segwit addresses.
For 'maximum compability' you should use the nested P2SH addresses (starting with 3.. ). If you are more into saving fees / not really dependent on exchange withdrawals: bech32 would be the way to go!
For hardware wallets: Ledger/Trezor support segwit. Not sure about KeepKey.