You were already given the solution.

Stop using an incredibly insecure outdated operating system which has reached its end of life already and even before that date was the least secure operating system.

The upgrade to windows 10 is still free. There is literally not a single good reason to stay with windows 7 instead of windows 10.

You could have simply used the time you already wasted on trying to get electrum running on your outdated os, to upgrade windows.

So, bascially.. the whole reason for a 2FA option is completely negated by that business practice.

If the used device is clean, no 2FA is necessary.
If the used device is compromised, the 2FA won't protect in most practical cases. An edge case would be that the mail account used is only accessed through a single clean device. And at that point, we are already far away from a simple to use 2fa wallet.

Eine ernst gemeinte Empfehlung Paypal zu nutzen sollte er eigentlich nirgens bekommen 
Aber wie es halt so oft ist, siegt die Bequemlichkeit und Service Provider mit einem schlechten Service und fragwürdigen Geschäftspraktiken werden verwendet.

SEPA / Kreditkarte geht als Käufer komplett ohne Gebühr.
Einen wirklichen Grund Paypal zu benutzten gibt es da nicht wirklich. 

This is very dependent on the current mempool status.

How fast do you want your transaction to be confirmed?
Check out https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h. Scroll to the 3rd graph. The fee should be less than 1MB from the tip if you want it to confirm within the next few blocks.

For a confirmation in the next block a fee of roughly 140 sat/vB would be recommended.
If the next few blocks are enough, 60-90 sat/vB might be enough.

Please keep in mind that these numbers are just an estimation. It heavily depends on how the network behaves. How many blocks get mined how fast and how much transactions with what fee will be added to the mempool.

Validating? Do you mean confirm?

Yes, it is normal for transactions to take longer to get confirmed. Especially if the mempool is clogged up as it is right now.

Check the fee of your transaction. Then head over to https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#0,24h and look at the 3rd graph.
The mempool has to clear to a point where the fee is below 1MB of the tip for it to get confirmed.
Depending on the fee, this might take hours or even days.


You don't need to worry.
Nothing happens if it doesn't confirm. You won't lose your coins. It either confirms or in the worst case it doesn't and after 2 weeks the transaction is dropped from the mempool which means you still have your coins in your "old" (sending) address.

Your transactions pays the lowest possible fee rate of 1sat/B.

This is fine and not a problem. But with the current mempool status, your transaction won't confirm within the next few hours or even days.

Luckily, RBF (Replace-by-fee) is enabled which means you can "bump" the fee to get it confirmed faster.
If you don't want to wait, you can either use the bitcoin-cli to bump the fee by using the bumpfee command (replace TXID with your transaction id):

Or, the 2nd more easy option would be to export the private key(s) of the sending address(es) and import them into electrum. Then you can simply check the history tab and right-click the transaction to bump the fee.

Wenn der Mempool gerade so voll ist wie jetzt bei einem ATH und du zugleich noch keine BTC besitzt, diese also erst kaufen und transferieren möchtest.. dann wird das mit einer Gebühr von weniger als 3.42€ nicht klappen.
Erst recht nicht wenn das etwas einmaliges ist und du "nur" BTC im wert von 80€/$ kaufst und auszahlen lassen willst.

Wenn du die BTC schon hast, dann könntest du abhängig von der Transaktionsgebühr die du wählst zwischen 0.02€ und ~5€ an Gebühren zahlen. Aber ohne BTC auf dem Wallet wird es schwer.

Compromising an offline computer is not as simple as "copying a malware file onto the USB which copies itself onto the offline computer".

In general the attack, as you have described it, is more or less possible.
But should you be worried about it? I don't think so. If you aren't a well known target, you shouldn't have too much fear regarding this attack vector.

But again.. if you really don't want to risk it, why don't you just use 2 webcams and QR codes to transmit the unsigned and signed transactions?

To be fair, there was no other case since then. Or was it? 

I wouldn't trust the post of a single random person too much. I mean, it is very well imaginable that they recovered his code.
But it's also possible that this was a pretty dumb employee who got fired afterwards or that the story wasn't that true at all.

I definitely wouldn't rely on getting the code recovered. And i also definitely wouldn't rely on trusted coin not doing this a.k.a. being relatively secure.

Hire some competent developer.
And since it seems like some serious money is involved, don't be cheap.

Don't ask random people on the internet to write the software. Get some developer and set up a contract. Go the proper way.

If that is what you intend to do, then you should first invest into a customized software which does exactly what you need.
It wouldn't even cost too much, since the API from most exchanges is pretty straight forward.

Without investing in some proper software, how can you expect someone "invest" into you and your "trading skills" ?

If the recovered wallet shows 2fa but does create different addresses, then it seems like it is the wrong mnemonic.

Do you remember setting up multiple wallets? Did you maybe backup / write down the secret key for the 2FA ?




This shouldn't be possible.
Their service is meant to offer some kind of security. Even if the pc of a user is compromised, no transaction should be possible.
With a "recovery" option, the chance exists that a malicious actor with full control over the users system can recover that key himself. This would be counterproductive.

Choose either a Ledger or Trezor device. That will be your best bet.

Both of them have their pros and cons.

Ledger's database got breached for example, resulting in some customers data being leaked. This did not affect the security of the hardware wallets tho.
Trezor on the other hand has an unfixable hardware vulnerability which requires you to take some extra precautions to stay secure.


Both are perfectly fine for your use case. Just research them both a little bit and decide based on your gut feeling. But i would definitely recommend to stay with one of these two.

If bumping the fee is not an option (e.g. because RBF is disabled), you still the possibility to use CPFP.

If you control one output (e.g. the change output), you can create a transaction spending this unconfirmed output.
Choose the fee high enough to pay for both transactions and a miner will include both of the transactions into the block.

The private key is needed to actually sign the transaction.
Your wallet (i.e. software if using a software wallet or hardware if using a hardware wallet) stores and uses the private keys.

All of the private keys are derived from the mnemonic code (the 24 words).
This mnemonic code (and eventually a password if you have used a BIP39 passphrase a.k.a. an "extended seed") is everything you need to recover all of your private keys and therefore all the BTC.

Your hardware wallet will store your private keys. It will use them to sign your transactions.

Do you roughly know how much you will get per transactions? Or when roughly the transactions will come in?

If so, you could create some simple logic to estimate the "perfect" fee for your current situation depending on the amount you received and the mempool.

This shouldn't be too tricky if you can roughly estimate how much you will receive.

Since the transaction is not marked as RBF and there is just one output (you) of the transaction, there is only one way to bump the fee. And that is child pays for parent.
You basically need to spend the unconfirmed output in a new transaction with a fee high enough to pay for both transactions.

If the fee is high enough, miners will include both transactions in the same block.

Das wäre auch besser so gewesen  
Macht ja irgendwie auch keinen Sinn, dass die Regeln nur im deutschen Teil nicht eingehalten werden. Und die Konsequenz davon ist, dass sich Spammer hier wohlfühlen.




Vermutlich das gleiche wie im restlichen Forum.. die Leute würden sich daran halten und spätestens wenn sie einen temporären Ban erhalten auch mal die Regeln lesen.




Ist weder dein Problem, noch meins.  

---

Kein Problem.
Kann Kraken auf jedenfall wärmstens empfehlen. Die scheinen mir, was die Sicherheit der Börse angeht, sehr kompetent zu sein.

Hatte nie gesagt, dass es umständlich ist. Nur dass es umständlicher ist.
Wenn es mehr als 2-3 Klicks am Rechner bzw. Smartphone erfordert, ist es umständlicher als die BTC online zu kaufen/verkaufen.



Ich sagte, dass es riskanter ist.
Und das Risiko ist definitiv höher als gemütlich von Zuhause aus.

Das trifft auf OTC Deals an Orten, die bekannt dafür sind dass Personen mit Kryptowährungen sich dort aufhalten (äquivalent zu den ATM's), auch zu.

Kraken hat z.B. One-Time-Tokens für einzelne Aktionen implementiert.

Konkret bedeutet das, dass du bei jedem Klick / Aufruf von einer Unterseite einen Token zugewiesen bekommst.
Mit diesem Token kannst du nur bestimmte Aktionen ausführen (quasi alle die von der Seite aus auch "klickbar" sind). Aber keine anderen.
Dieser Token ist dann auch nach dieser Aktion wieder ungültig und du bekommst damit einen neuen Token mit neuen "Berechtigungen".

Das ist ein wirksames Tool gegen Cross-Site Request Forgery bei sensiblen und kritischen Aktionen.
Wenn du somit z.B. in Kraken eingeloggt bist und auf der "Kaufen" Seite bist, kann kein Request für eine Auszahlung, einen Verkauf oder ähnliches erstellt werden.


Solche One-Time Tokens sind auf Binance z.B. nicht implementiert. Teilweise verwenden nicht mal Banken solche One-Time-Tokens.
Wie es jetzt mit Bitstamp steht weiß ich nicht, da ich den Exchange noch nie verwendet habe.