How exactly did you "threw in" your wallet.dat file to Bitcoin Core v25.0? Please describe the steps that you did.
Depending on how you did it and its timing, if it rescanned or not, the blocks with the transactions may have been skipped.
(BTW, having no unverified transaction history at all isn't promising)

Letting it finish is still recommended since you can rescan later, that's only if you didn't enabled "prune block storage" setting
which would prevent you from scanning those old blocks without redownloading the entire blockchain.
If you want to finish it, I'd recommend to disable the setting if it's enabled and start over.
Otherwise, if you don't have the disk space, make sure that the wallet is properly loaded (use "Restore Wallet") before starting over initial block download again.

On a side note, the latest release version is v26.0 as you can see above the forum menu, but it didn't affected the result.
There's no "official Bitcoin website" BTW.

Yeah, first he mentioned "client of his friend", but later "his client".
It's as if he's somehow offering a recovery service while not knowing how to do the job he's offering, posted this in the guise of helping a friend.

What went wrong is he didn't even authenticated his client's claims through the ridiculous story alone, if it's legitimate, it would've been arranged by now even with CPU.

But the good thing is: this thread can be used as reference in case someone has misarranged 12-word mnemonic seed.

Is this in console or command line?
Because in the GUI's console (v4.5.4); I tested it and the transaction remains, plus it causes a bug if the outbound transaction has change.
Instead of removing the transaction, it shows that the change is added to the balance instead (shows as "+change_amount" in black text).
If the transaction doesn't have a change, it'll be removed.

Instead, this command will remove it entirely:

I don't know why, you're the one who've originally asked...

Virustotal works like this: It scans the file using separate Antivirus heuristics and shows each AV's result.
Showing 1 positive doesn't always mean that the file is malicious, it's just with that specific AV.
Among the results, "Undetected" means that the file is safe according to the AVs that reported it.

Given that, it's a single unpopular Antivirus' analysis.
Out of the 70~ish antivirus software listed there (with 10 amongst the popular showing "Undetected"), only "Zillya" reported a positive result.
IMO, that's enough to be considered false-positive.

But if you want to be totally sure that there's no Trojan in your software: "don't trust, verify"
Build Bitcoin Core yourself after auditing the code to check if there's something malicious there.
Link to Bitcoin Core's repo: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin

I saw that "0/70 result" but you didn't noticed that Zillya was skipped (not "Undetected") in that for some reason,
The current "reanalyzed" result shows the "1/71" OP originally saw.

Seeing the old wallet(s) is normal even if you just installed Electrum if you previously uninstalled it without deleting your electrum data directory.
Given that this is your old wallet, old data directory and there's nothing in its history,
chance that it's empty to begin with is very likely because its previous history wont be deleted even if unused for a long time.
(if you're using the wallet before, why would it be empty?)

If you're really sure that you've transactions before, you might have been using a different wallet file from the one that you've opened.
Firstly, check the "Open" wallet menu to see if there are other wallet files available there.

If none, one probability is if you've been using a "Portable" Electrum and also used a Standard Installer/Executable before. (Windows has specific binaries)
Each uses a different data directory, so each has a different wallets directory and settings.
For example; if you've created a wallet in both versions but the one that you've funded is in the Portable Electrum,
the wallet file should be in "electrum_data/wallets" portable datadir located in the same folder where ElectrumPortable was saved.
Then fast forward today, if you've installed the Installer or Stand-alone, it used the default datadir instead where the empty wallet is located.
TL;DL: Look for "wallets" folder or "electrum_data" (then open the wallets folder inside), then check if there are other wallets inside the wallets folder.

Exchange withdrawal history, transactions from other wallets, etc. nothing? Hmm...

For clarification, is it "Breeze" or "Breez" wallet?
Because the former isn't a lightning Bitcoin wallet.

Have you checked the address in blockexplorers to see if it received the bitcoins that you've sent in the first try?
Is the wallet fully synced to the network? For Breez, tap the sync icon on the upper-right hand side.

I have no means to test this since I don't have that old HW, but;
Try to create raw transaction in a "watch-only wallet" in v3.3.8, then export that unsigned transaction to a v2.x Electrum connected to your hardware wallet to be signed.
Export the signed transaction back to v.3.3.8 and broadcast it.

The watch-only wallet should be created with your addresses by importing them via "Import bitcoin addresses or private keys" option in new wallet option.

The options to export are in this article: electrum.readthedocs.io/en/latest/coldstorage.html#create-an-unsigned-transaction
Do not use v4.x as your watch-only wallet because its unsigned transaction format isn't supported by v2.x.

What are the args that you use with bitcoin-cli?
Because if --datadir or --conf arg aren't provided, it'll assume that you're using the default path and the bitcoin.conf file in it.
For example: if you launch bitcoind --datadir= ; bitcoin-cli should also be run with --datadir=.

If you need to keep things tidy, you can just set every arg including the datadir in a dedicated bitcoin.conf file and set it to both bitcoind and bitcoin-cli with --conf= arg.

Better yet, if you want to minimize the usage of args, you can even put that bitcoin.conf file in bitcoin's default datadir,
then you can just launch bitcoind/bitcoin-cli without any args and it should load configurations on that bitcoin.conf file.

Bitcoin.conf file article: github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/doc/bitcoin-conf.md#configuration-file-path

It will be highlighted in red if the string is invalid.
Could it be that you're trying to send to a bech32/bech32m address (starts with "bc1")?
Because Bitcoin Core v0.14.0 doesn't support sending to SegWit addresses.

If not, try to check each characters since a Bitcoin address has checksum, one wrong character will invalidate it.

I'm not aware of any deprecated config/arg to enable non-HD wallet creation to the latest version.

As for the installation, there's no specific location to install the binaries as long as you can find and launch it.
Installing over the old version should work as long as it's not running.

I didn't expected that to work, really.
It's good to know that the "URL trick" to get the wallet.aes.json's contents still works in old wallets with associated email.
Usually, it'll request for email authorization but wont show the payload even after refresh.

Since you're using BTCRecover where there are separate decryption scheme for old and new wallets,
it may still work in your old wallet because the buggy code is still applied there.
Link: github.com/3rdIteration/btcrecover/blob/master/btcrecover/btcrpass.py#L2027-L2036

Yes, but that was in the past and it's uncertain if it'll work today even if your wallet is old.
It wont work in newer wallets.

It requires your WalletID and the step is simple; type their URL with your walletID like this: blockchain.info/wallet/<WalletID>?format=json
For example: blockchain.info/wallet/aaaaaaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaa-aaaaaaaaaaaa?format=json

The old BTCRecover's extract script didn't work in my test which I remember working in the paste few years.
Here's the script if you're interested bu as I've mentioned, it failed with "HTTP Error 403" in my test.
Link: github.com/gurnec/btcrecover/blob/master/extract-scripts/download-blockchain-wallet.py

AFAIK, you should've received it in those email as an attachment, try to search for old email sent by Blockchain(dot)info.

That's quite the setup, Android Electrum is your Air-Gap device?
But the answer is yes, both Electrum and Sparrow use "Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction" (PSBT) export but Electrum is specific on its supported format.

Here's how to export an Electrum-compatible format:

• After creating the unsigned transaction in Sparrow; use the menu: "File->Save PSBT->To Clipboard->As Base64"
• Then transfer that copied text file to your phone through your preferred method.
• To import it to mobile Electrum, copy the base64 PSBT string, use "Send" then "Paste from clipboard".
• To export it after signing, use: "Share->Copy to Clipboard".
• Back to Sparrow, use the menu: "File->Open Transaction->From Text...", paste and broadcast the signed transaction.

You can also use: "Click File->Save PSBT->As Base64" to save it as a text file that you can transfer to your phone.
Open that txt file and copy the contents then do the last few steps above.

Hmm, but your screenshot shows that the addresses are the same.

Do you mean the WIF private keys are wrong?
It's working in HCP's version of that edited IanColeman BIP39 tool, here: github.com/HardCorePawn/electrumBIP39



If there's an issue in your version, just use his code since it does all that was instructed in the linked old topic.

Or do you mean the master public key in Electrum?
If so, it's equivalent to the "BIP32 Extended Public Key" at m/0'

May be the script type that you've selected in Sparrow.
Are the addresses with balance in Trezor or Blue wallet 'Native SegWit', 'Legacy' or 'Nested-SegWit'?

Even though the exported ".json" file from Coldcard contains all three script types, only the one selected in "Script Type" in Sparrow (in Keystores settings above) will be restored in that wallet.

Heads-up, those other Electrum server implementations aren't as "lightweight" as EPS.
If you're looking for similar implementation, Sparrow wallet has a very similar approach to connect to Bitcoin Core but supports descriptor wallet.
That's if you're open to switch from Electrum to Sparrow.

In case someone is interested to merge EPS to Electrum,
Please consider replying to this issue (posted by the dev himself): Fix EPS and build it into Electrum #8142

"Again"? Was it working before?
What was the last version that you've used?

You need to provide more information than just giving vague descriptions of the issue.
For starters, write the actual errors that Bitcoin Core shown.
You may also provide the last logs from "debug.log" file so me and other members could analyze the possible cause of the errors.
Just start from the last "2024-month-day Time Bitcoin Core version v26.0.0 (release build)" line to the last line and paste it between [code][/code] tags.

For now, based from those words, I suspect that the former is about the pop-up saying legacy wallets being deprecated in future versions which isn't an issue for now.
The latter may be a corruption of your "peers.dat" file which can be safely deleted while Bitcoin Core is closed.
It's based from nothing but your "peers corruption" description, so getting the log is still recommended if it didn't work.

Both "debug.log" and "peers.dat" are both in your bitcoin data directory.
Default location in: en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Data_directory#Default_Location; otherwise, in the custom datadir that you've set.

So the previous testnet setup had those wallets loaded?

Anyways, have you received errors when loading wallets?
If none and the setting.json file shows the wallet's name or path, then that wallet should now automatically load in the next session.

It should have the a json-encoded list of loaded wallets below that warning message, like this:

Since it's empty for some reason, Bitcoin Core wont automatically load any of the wallets in the "/wallets" directory .
Refer only to the settings.json in the data directory that you've been using which is still in: .../Bitcoin/testnet3/tesnet3:

Okay, so the actual use-case is to use a separate fiat-value which most wallets do is just stamp the value of mainnet to testnet.
(which is reasonable considering testnet has no "real" price)

Without questioning the rationale to that (I saw your other posts), it's quite doable by dirty-editing the price ticker APIs set by your favorite wallet.

For example, in Electrum's "exchange_rate.py" script; editing any USD price class to an API that supports testnet should show you the testnet price when that ticker is selected.
For example; from Bitpay's mainnet API to coinpaprika's testnet API:

Then, by selecting Bitpay in the GUI's menu: "Tools->Preferences->Fiat", Fiat Currency: "USD" Source: "Bitpay"
It will show testnet price based from coinpaprika's API (link) instead (but will also apply to mainnet):


If you really want it, edit the mentioned code and compile it yourself: github.com/spesmilo/electrum/blob/master/README.md#creating-binaries
I run Electrum from source to test it as quickly as possible BTW, so I don't have a compiled binary.

That could actually help on finding a clue with search engines, use website-specific search and force the words AppArmor profile and Electrum in the search.
In Google search, use this search string:That way, it'll only search in whonix forum and the result should include both "AppArmor profile" (exact phrase) and "Electrum", neither will be searched alone.
The results aren't promising but I wont click them all to check.

The first result with "apparmor-profile-everything" mentioned that it worked in Electrum: forums.whonix.org/t/using-apparmor-profile-everything-on-debian-buster/8650
AppArmor-profile-everything: github.com/Kicksecure/apparmor-profile-everything
But that's depreciated now and its successor "apparmor.d" doesn't have an Electrum profile in profiles a~f: github.com/roddhjav/apparmor.d/tree/main/apparmor.d/profiles-a-f