There's no indication of it being corrupted aside from: what's supposed to happen doesn't work.
If you open it as text, it may seem normal or garbage depending in how corrupted the data is.

And the "password issue" isn't a specific issue, I'm talking about your last reply that indicates that your password doesn't work on a supposedly corrupted wallet that Electrum can't read.
It's best to open a different topic per wallet/issue that you have to keep things organized and to minimize confusions like this.

Yeah, the readable-data definitely doesn't look like from old Electrum (electrum.dat) nor Electrum wallet file.

For MultiBit, I don't know the contents of its wallet file but you may find references of it in this board: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=99.0

The instructions in the link he provided are meant for older versions of Electrum.
For the latest version, just enclose the OP_RETURN script inside "script()" followed by the amount.

e.g. (based from your screenshot):

You can also get this information by clicking the "Pay to" text in the 'Send' tab.

It doesn't work like that, if some of the encrypted data's bits are flipped, it wont change the encryption password but the encrypted data itself.

And what do you mean by "word", part of the password or your seed phrase?
Because in the OP, it looks like that the wallet wont load at all since it says "Cannot read the file".
While here, the statement suggests that it's a password issue.

I see that this applies to my other reply as well;
In your previous reply, you mention a wallet with local transactions, means that it's already loaded.
Plus, if you will follow my very simple instruction on how to import WIF prvKey to Electrum, it'll just require to sync without the need of Blockexplorer.

This topic: /index.php?topic=5558656.20?
Perhaps you misunderstood them since I can't see any reply that mentioned that?

Blockchain.com (website) isn't just the Exchange, it's the same as their mobile client that contains both the self-custodial wallet and exchange service.
The consensus in the thread is: the email is about getting access to the exchange, KYC is not mandatory if it's just the self-custodial part, but still misleading.

And it's not surprising that you received another email since you haven't unsubscribed prior to posting this...

It's just their "non-custodial" wallet (better call it "self-custodial") renamed as "DeFi" (Decentralized Finance) Wallet.

This is when you selected "Standard->Use a master key" option but imported a WIF private key instead.
That option only accepts (master) extended private/public keys like xprv/xpub.

The option that you should select to import those "L" and "K" private key is: "Import bitcoin addresses or private keys".

If you're pertaining to the history tab, this means that the currently open wallet has transactions that aren't in its (auto)selected server's mempool or blockchain.
You can try selecting a different server in the network options (click the circle-connection icon) and see if it'll change after a few tries.
If not, those transactions aren't in the Bitcoin blockchain, but not necessarily means that it's invalid.
If it's an inbound (receiving) transaction and the wallet isn't "watch-only", you can try to open and broadcast it to try to actually send it.
If it returns with an error, tell what it says (but that already means that there's something wrong with the local transaction)

I didn't, I rarely suggest using a blockexplorer unless it's necessary for the OP.

Letting the wallet sync is all you need to check for transactions and balance.

You may try to use a multi-coin blockexplorer instead to make sure that your wallet file(s) aren't from Electrum forks.
To get the addresses, just enable your addresses tab (View->Show Addresses), then a tab named "Addresses" will show.

Hmm, that shouldn't cause any corruption.

In bitcoin, your system's misconfigured clock shouldn't cause any issue even if you set it to an hour late/advance as long as it's not 70minutes prior/past the network's "median time".
If it does, you'll get related warnings instead of random corruption.

Have you tried this yet?
FYI, only those with "K" or "L" are the ones that you should import, not mixed with the ones starting with "1".
If you mix them together during import, the "next" button wont be clickable.

And I'd recommend you to verify your latest Electrum download before using it.
Here's how to: bitcoinelectrum.com/how-to-verify-your-electrum-download

Okay so you mean "download" which is the opposite of "upload".

Because corrupted or not, the human-readable data inside the wallet that you described doesn't look like an electrum wallet file.

BTW, at that time, there were rogue servers that can send fake Electrum update notification that instructed the connected user to download an update from a fake but mirrored version of electrum website.
May be related.

Does the list has strings that starts with "K", "L", or "5"?
If you have the first two, click the "Info" button when you try to import them to Electrum menu: "New/Restore->[wallet name]->Import bitcoin addresses or private keys"
If the latter, import it without those script type prefixes.

Lastly, a correction, there's no such thing as "private address key", refer to these examples instead:

• If it's starts with the characters I listed above and consists of 51/52 characters; it's a "Private Key" in WIF (Wallet Import Format), you can use this to import/sweep to most wallet.
• If it starts with '1', '3', 'bc1'; it's just a "Bitcoin Address".
• If it starts with "04" consisting of 130 characters or "03" or "02" consisting of 66 characters; it's a "Public Key", you can't import this to your electrum wallet nor can be used to recover your bitcoins.

Bitcoin is capable of doing that, RBF doesn't restrict the replacement transaction from changing any of output, amount or entirely.

Refer to these rules to check its limitations: BIP-0125 - Implementation Details
On a side note: last rule is talking about a complication for when an unconfirmed transaction with unconfirmed children got dropped or replaced.

Next to CPFP:

You are correct in this one.
Child-pays-for-parent is simply another transaction that spends an unconfirmed transaction's output set with a high transaction fee.
Without another output (change) that you can spend, only the recipient can do CPFP to it.

The goal is to make its txfee high enough that the miners couldn't resist including it to their block.
However, since its parent transaction is unconfirmed and it can't be confirmed without it, they'll have to include both transactions.

It's not FUD, it's forum members being "skeptic".
Otherwise, most of them will take any topic in face value and become susceptible to trolls or scams.
That's a normal reaction IMO, specially when there's little information provided coupled with unrelated stuffs.

For the file that you actually need to find, refer to the first reply.
The possible of existence of mining software/algorithm is only for confirmation that there may be a wallet or private keys stored in the drive.
However, private keys can be tricky to find since it's not just bitcoin that use it, you may find thousands of unrelated 256-bit numbers so try to find a wallet file first.

Anyways, since you posted this here in Bitcoin Technical Support board, I doubt that you'll find someone to do your to-be-paid with "a nice payout" request.
Services-related topics can be posted in this board where those who're looking for such jobs lurk: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=52.0

He must be serious.
In the Philippines (same as OP's region), I sometimes find some old System Units in "Garage Sales" (containing old used/unused stocks) for as low as 500PHP~1000PHP ($10~$20) which ranges from Pentium4 to Core2Duo.
Ancient stuffs used by cavemen but too cheap of a bargain for those who want a PC slower than your average smartphone. <- @technicalguy83 take note of this part.

Those results from keywords "crypto" and "btc" doesn't always mean that the file is related to Bitcoin.

For example, "btcoexist" is related to bluetooth drivers as the name implies "BT" or "Bluetooth".
And "crypto" which most of the time means "cryptography" not always "cryptocurrency".

I wont look up all those filenames but I'm pretty sure others may find those file names familiar,
And my best guess is those are mostly related to the OS and PGP.

Don't think too much of the contents and size since you've overwritten the file itself by using the same file name as the previous.
That's a normal behavior of every operating system, not exclusive to Electrum: Saving something to same directory and same file name of an existing file results with an overwrite.

The discrepancy in the size may be due to the queued "to-be-written" data in the first wallet file backup which must have been already fulfilled in the next wallet file backup.
The extra names such as 'operation' and 'path' add a few additional bytes to the wallet file.
However, the important data such as the keystore remains the same.

Based from my experience, that website sometimes can't find my node, sometimes it does. (with its onion address)
While checking the "Peers" tab of the GUI usually show an inbound peer a few seconds after launcing the node (considering it's not IBD)

Or use the command suggested above: getnetworkinfo to check if your preferred network is "reachable: true".

I don't get what you mean by "upload".
Electrum doesn't have such feature in the client nor its official website: electrum.org

Are you sure you're using a legit Electrum wallet?
Because the information that you provided so far, don't look like related to Electrum.
Your description of the wallet file's contents doesn't look like an v2.0+ Electrum wallet file as well.

Because you know, there are a lot of fake Electrum wallets in the internet.

Well, if you have a legit encrypted Electrum wallet file that you don't know the password.
Some people could try to bruteforce it using their software and hardware.

And electricity to power those GPUs isn't cheap and writing a software isn't easy as well.
However, you're prone to scammers that way so do not entertain PMs from random members specially new accounts, only deal with reputable members with a good track record.

Just to be fair, it's indicated in the wallet creation wizard that there'll be a service fee when using the 2fa wallet so no one can be blamed on it.

For the potential refund, Electrum's 2fa service is served by a Third-party provider "Trusted Coin".
But the transaction wont be reversed as it's not possible, they'll just send you the rest of the satoshis if it's possible to refund.
(so far, I only seen one similar topic with "good news" in other forums)

So after disabling 2fa with the instruction above and after sending the rest of your fund elsewhere:
You may contact them to ask for a (partial) refund, make sure to use the email that you use when you setup the 2fa wallet.

Link to their contact page: trustedcoin.com/#/contact-us

How old was the version that you last used the wallet file?
Better if you can tell the specific Electrum version.

It looks like corrupted although some of the readable texts aren't familiar.
Even if the old wallet is encrypted, the data should still be readable text, not garbage text of its hexadecimal representation.

If it's <v2.0 You can try your luck by checking if the numbers after the name: "'seed':" is intact, e.g.: 'long_number_string'
If so, even if it's not a "seed phrase" Electrum will still identify it as "old" seed when you restore it to the latest version. (remove the '' during restore)

The thing is, Electrum isn't a company.
And they don't store your bitcoins for you, you private keys that control your bitcoins are in that wallet file of yours which is saved in your machine's HDD/SSD.
If it has a hardware or software issue that corrupted the file, it's on to the user as per agreement with the "MIT License" in their EULA.

Oh, that's expected for nodes in pruned mode since it cannot scan the blocks that are already pruned.

The ideal setup for a node that'll be used to load old wallet.dat is with prune setting disabled.
Or if you really don't have the disk space to spare, load all wallet.dat files before (re)syncing so all wallets will be scanned while the node is syncing.

assumevalid=0 wont make it work BTW, it'll only make your node verify every script in every block, with prune enabled, it'll still delete old blocks.

Since you said that yours isn't associated with an email, it shouldn't ask for email verification on login?
Or do you mean that you want to link another email to replace the original?

If the former, then try the last mentioned method by Shaybbbbb to get the payload (that wont work if the account needs email verification).
If the latter (not applicable to your case) you would need to follow this to export your payload (wallet.aes.json) but it requires email verification to work: /index.php?topic=5549745.msg65591943#msg65591943

Then as a summary of the next steps: export the private keys using their wallet decryption tool, convert those to WIF and import them to Electrum.
But if you have funds outside your DeFi wallet, I'm afraid that you'll need to comply with their request since it's in their custody.

In any case, I'd recommend you to post a new topic regarding the result since it's quite off topic to this thread.
Posts about the decryption can be posted here in this board, while if it's exclusively for their mobile/web client, post it in "Web Wallets" board.

It can accept both case and the result address is case-sensitive.

You may have used a non base58 character in your last test to generate a legacy vanity address (Wiki: Base58Check)
But it's the other way around of what you said since the "I" and "O" in "DICTATOR" isn't valid for legacy address.
The lower-case version on the other hand, has valid characters.

For Native SegWit, you either have to use all upper-case or all lower-case, the address can't be mixed-case.