Fee rate, not fee.


The block size limit isn't a variable at all and it doesn't make sense to say the transaction confirmation time depends on block size limit. The block size limit is always 1 vMB or 4 million weight units.


It may worth mentioning that you can use their fee service only if the fee rate used for your transaction is at least 10 sat/byte.

The halving will probably happen much sooner.
There are 61,287 blocks until the next halving. For the halving happens in the July of next year, it is required that these 61,287 blocks take at least 702,720 minutes to be mined which gives us the average block time of 11 minutes and 28 seconds. That's very unlikely.

Due to obvious reasons, I don't like trustwallet and I wouldn't recommend anyone to use trustwallet, but it may worth mentioning that trustwallet allows users to set the fee rate manually.
To set the fee rate manually on trustwallet, you can tap on "Setting" button at top right corner of the screen before confirming your transaction details.

If your friend is comparing bitcoin with altcoins, tell him/her that you may get the first confirmation in many altcoins much faster, but altcoins need a much higher number of confirmations, so a transaction is equivalent to a bitcoin transaction with only 1 confirmation.

The date displayed on bitcoinblockhalf or any other website is just an estimation. bitcoinblockhalf assumes that next blocks will be mined with the average time of exactly 10 minutes.
Till now, 778491 blocks have been mined and there are 61509 until the next having. Assuming these 61509 blocks will mined at the rate of 1 per 10 minutes on average, the halving will be 615090 minutes or 427 days later. This is exactly what estimated by bitcoinblockhalf.

Other websites may use different methods for estimating the halving date.

Assuming there will be no change in the hash rate and the next blocks will be mined at the rate of 1 per 10 minutes on average, the halving will be 430 days later which will be the last week of April.
If the hashrate increases and blocks are mined faster, the halving can happen even earlier.

With mempoolfullrbf=1, you only ask your node to accept and broadcast replacement transactions with higher fee even if the original transaction hasn't been flagged as RBF.
There is no way to change other nodes setting and almost all nodes will reject any transaction spending same UTXO(s) as a non-RBF transaction.

This was not possible at all. OP's transaction was not RBF-enabled and importing the private key into electrum couldn't change anything.
You can replace your transaction with a new one paying higher fee only if the original transaction has been flagged as RBF.
Take note that if OP's transaction was RBF-enabled, he/she could replace it with a new one using bitcoin core itself and without any need to electrum.
 

The message doesn't mean your account has been blocked. As the message clearly says, not only your account hasn't been blocked, but some restrictions have been lifted and you should be thankful to the moderator who whitelisted you freely.

You already said that you used the fee rate of 5.2 sat/vbyte for your transaction.
With that fee rate your transaction should have been confirmed by now, unless it has an unconfirmed parent with the very low fee rate.

Can you see your transaction in block explorers? Maybe, your transaction hasn't been broadcasted to the network and it's just a local transaction.

You should never trust centralized services with your sensitive data.
Just because you haven't ever heard of anyone having security issue with gmail doesn't mean you can keep your sensitive data on gmail safely. As I already said, any centralized service is prone to hacking.

There is no need to use coinb.in.
With using zapwallettxes command, you remove the unconfirmed transaction from your mempool and you can broadcast the new transaction using bitcoin core itself.

Anyway, OP's transaction has been probably confirmed so far.

As the name suggests, a watch-only wallet is used for watching transactions. There is no way to spend fund from a watch-only wallet.
Of course, even if it wasn't watch-only, you still shouldn't have sent any money to them. As stated by OmegaStarScream above, electrum has no support at all and they are trying to scam you.

With using zapwallettxes command, you ask your node to remove the unconfirmed transactions, but your transaction has been probably broadcasted to many other nodes and there is no way to ask them to remove your transaction from their mempool.

You can try your chance and broadcast a new transaction with a higher fee, but it's very unlikely that your new transaction can be included in the blockchain.

Electrum itself is secure enough. Your wallet is now as secure as your device. It's possible that your device will be infected with a malware and you lose your bitcoin.
As I said in my previous post, if you want your wallet to be 100% secure, it's recommended to create the wallet on an air-gapped device. This means that you should generate your wallet on a device which has been always offline and will be never online.

It's not that there's a database of addresses and there's a bitcoin address provider that gives an address to every user.
You can generate numerous bitcoin addresses through some mathematical calculations even without any internet connection. So, your address isn't registered anywhere and as long as the address hasn't been funded, no one can know such address has been generated.

Take note that your sim-card provider is a centralized service that has full control over everything related to your sim-card. In bitcoin, there is no third party at all. No one has control over addresses and transactions.

With importing your seed phrase into electrum, you created the same wallet in electrum, but the fund was still in the wallet generated by blockchain.com and you didn't increase your security.
The right thing to do was to create a new wallet in electrum and send all the fund to that.

If you want your fund to be completely secure in the future, you should create your wallet on an air-gapped device or use a hardware wallet. Take note that any online wallet is prone to hacking.

Are you sure the email was sent from blockchain.com? Are you sure the fund was stolen before opening the email? Maybe, that was a phishing email. (This is just a guess)
How did you login to your blockchain.com account after seeing that email? Did you go to blockchain.com as before or you clicked on a link sent via email?

Right.

grumpygit, you created your topic on "Bitcoin discussion" and moderators moved it to "Web Wallets". That's all.
Take note that you can see all your posts in your post history. Go to your profile and click on "Show the last posts of this person" to see all your posts or "Show the last topics started by this person" to see just your topics.


Edit:
As shown in the modlog, three of your posts have been deleted recently, but they don't seem to be what you are talking about here.

May I ask you why you repeat the same thing again and again?
You have made the following post in four different threads.

As already mentioned by OmegaStarScream, it's a very bad idea to keep your private keys online. Any centralized service and any online device is prone to hacking.
You should keep your private keys offline, on a piece of paper or even better on a metal sheet.

And you may want to consider creating a HD wallet with a seed phrase (a series of 12-24 words). In this way, you can have numerous addresses all generated from a seed phrase.
Unlike a private key, a seed phrase can be written down on a piece of paper easily.