To be fair, in United States the term freedom of speech has always been part of the dictatorship because it always comes down to one definition: "you are free to say whatever you like as long as what you say doesn't have any conflict with the regime's interest". It is not up to Musk or anybody else either, it is the US regime's decision considering how US sees the internet as a whole, a military ground and it is even under the supervision and control of the armed forces of US (under Department of Defense) and even has a 4-star general in "control" of it.

To be fair that too is the US regime's new policy. The shift happened in the past year with mass advertising of AI as something "dangerous" and there has been lots of attempts to "discourage others" from doing any kind of development in this field while US does it under the radar to try and get ahead since US has fallen far behind in AI technology specially for military applications.

When we talk about security, it is sometimes like defensive measures you take to increase your protection against different types of attack hence increasing your security. For example when you use a non-custodial wallet you eliminate certain ways you could lose your money and bring yourself one step to being safe. When you use an open source wallet you eliminate other ways of losing your money,... when you use a popular open source wallet you eliminate another set of ways you could lose money, and so on.

You may never be able to eliminate every single way you could lose money but that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to eliminate what you can. This is why when it comes to choosing between a closed source wallet and open source wallet the later is always the choice whether or not there is any way that the later could also be compromised.

I'm talking about different ways of limiting different ways to attack Bitcoin. Sometimes it is a hard limit by making something invalid (eg. 100 byte limit above) sometimes it is a soft limit by making something non-standard. But in both cases we are preventing attacks and abuse of the system but with different approaches.

In case of standard rules, sometimes they are applied because we want to leave the protocol open for future expansions. Like witness version 2+ being nonstandard.
Sometimes they are applied because there was a flaw in the protocol that needed to be "fixed" without needing a fork. Like restricting the dummy data used by OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) operations.

The actual problem as I have said many times is that people are abusing Bitcoin. The extra fees is the side effects of that abuse. There are a handful of other negative side effects of this types of attacks, including but not limited to: blockchain bloat, the UTXO bloat with dust outputs, extra cost of running a node, possible legal issues involving the content of this attack that could give some malicious governments the excuse to put pressure on businesses and individuals using bitcoin, ...

Considering how "this" means the economy on the global scale where the centralized governments in each country keep printing money non-stop and without any actual cap, the answer is no. Bitcoin can not and is not designed to fix the economy or fix the government or the banking system.
In other words governments have been printing fiat non-stop before bitcoin and they will continue doing so after bitcoin (2009). They just raised the money printing cap (debt ceiling) in US to print trillions more

Bitcoin is supposed to be that extra option for those who want to gain at least some financial sovereignty in a world where it is lacking.

Since Atomic Wallet was not a custodial wallet, users weren't exactly putting their funds in the hands of the company behind the wallet. They had control over their own funds but the problem was that because the wallet is closed source they didn't know who else also has access to their keys and consequently their funds.

In addition to what is discussed here you should not forget that migrating to an open source wallet is not going to provide complete security on its own. There is a lot of other things that need to be done to gain a good degree of security.

I'd say at least there are two important steps:

First step is to making sure you are actually getting the correct software for installation. This is done through some research and finally by finding the correct public key of the developers and verifying the signature of the wallet binaries you are about to install. Example for Electrum: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5240594.0
Otherwise if you skip this important step you may lose funds in this step.

Second step is to securing the wallet you chose. For example by using it offline (in an airgap computer) as opposed to using it online on the same system you use to surf the internet.

There are a couple of mistakes in the odolvlobo's comment.
First of all Elliptic Curve Cryptography used in bitcoin has nothing to do with encryption. The primary use of ECDSA (the signature algorithm used by bitcoin) is also for asymmetric cryptography not symmetric cryptography (ie. encryption/decryption).
Secondly what we have in symmetric cryptography is encryption and decryption which is not the same as "reversing" the result. You are "decrypting" the encrypted result using the passphrase used for encryption. Otherwise the encryption is also irreversible, meaning you can't compute the message by having the encrypted result alone.

It doesn't really matter what he may have done for bitcoin in the past if you ask me. What matters is the scam he pulled in the end.
I'm not going to make accusations and I don't really care enough to find out what he has done in early years but one wonders whether his intentions were always to scam people. After all this is not the first time, the most recent case was Elon Musk who gained some popularity in the cryptocurrency world by speaking positively about bitcoin, even accepting bitcoin in his companies right before he started scamming people with pump and dumping shitcoins, namely Doge.

You ask this question because you have been reading propaganda about dedollarisation not the reality of it which is why your question which you think is smart is actually an unrealistic question that makes no sense.

Dedollarisation is not going to make USD disappear or the trading pairs to vanish. Dedollarisation means different countries are no longer forced to only use this fiat with unlimited supply from an artificial country with almost $32 trillion debt that is printing it non-stop and exports the resulting inflation to those countries.
The real dedollarisation means reduction of dependence on dollar, that consequently reduces USD strength and US power to dictate policies in those countries while strengthening the economy and independence of those countries. So countries that were using USD for 90%-100% of their everything (reseve currency and trading medium) will slowly reduce that to 80%, 70%, 50%, 30%,...

For example after dedollarisation when Indonesia wants to trade with Philippines they don't have to do it using dollar anymore. They'll use numerous different ways they used for thousands of years before United States was invented or they were forced to use dollar and dollar alone. But when each of them want to trade with US or its colonies they can still keep using dollar.

Most importantly, this process is not going to finish over night.

The global economy is too uncertain right now to make any serious investments in my opinion. And it is not only about bitcoin, it is about everything else too. With the ongoing recession and inflation and with the recent re-start of the money printing machines in United States after they increased the debt ceiling we are in for more of economic uncertainty.

For now stick with DCA and HODL...

That's exactly the reason, to catch newbies who don't know any better.

The principle is usually the same too with all tokens (including stable coins). The creators of such tokens have no money, no revolutionary idea or anything they could use to make money. So instead they sell "air". They simply create these tokens and start selling them to newbies, making money in the process!

The fact that there is also "staking" on top of it where you get profit for holding your bitcoins in THEIR pocket shows what a filthy Ponzi scheme this is
These things don't fall apart like regular schemes since there is a market where people keep trading them. In other words some of them manage to create an artificial utility that lasts as long as the gamblers keep trading. Then it falls apart catastrophically.

At the end of the day Binance is primarily an altcoin exchange and whatever happens to it should affect the altcoin market significantly not bitcoin's. But realistically speaking the FUD always finds its way to the bitcoin market and affects the weak hands hence causing the drops like we've seen too many times in the past.
Besides, what SEC does to Binance is not the issue here, what the FUD is going to be and how it will affect the market is the only thing that matters.

They have been doing that for many years but it officially started under the code-name "Etidal" in 2017 aiming to data harvest, censor what the regime doesn't like (eg. news about the journalist they murdered in broad daylight) and to spread extremism/terrorism when they want it in places they want. Saudi regime is only one of many customers Twitter has for such operations.

Keep in mind that Musk didn't buy Twitter to make profit (as a business). He did it to gain power over information and in the political scene. This means such drops does not matter at all, the only drop that matters is in the number of users and the propaganda's reach which is not happening so far.

That news is mostly twisted and the situation is blown out of proportion. Of course there is going to be disagreements and most importantly competition between countries that want their own fiat to be dominant not other countries'. What we are seeing is the transitional phase where things change while different countries compete with each other to get a bigger share in the new world order.
In fact this is the period where weak countries are going to be swallowed, even borders may change. And this has happened many times in the history.

It took nearly a decade to prepare for that invasion (sanctioning Iraq, causing famine and starvation in the country, disarming of Iraq, attacking defensive positions of Iraq, etc.) then US invaded with a massive coalition with NATO and dozens of countries like Ukraine.
The difference is that there are loads of countries that are dumping dollar these days and US neither has the time to prepare for such invasions nor the global coalition to perform such invasions nor any are those countries weak to be invaded.

---

As @Darker45 put it perfectly, the process is not linear and has ups and downs. With the recent 15th BRICS summit the dedollarisation should speed up again among the member countries (both official and unofficial members). I'm waiting for more news about it to come up with a better analysis, but so far many positive news has come out with numerous economical cooperation that would help all the involving economies and some of which involve dumping dollar.

You could also perform a spam attack on the network to increase the fees and the income of the miners. Like 2017!

Wrong. LN doesn't remove on-chain transactions. In fact it increases the usage since people would have to open and close channels to enter and exit LN.

That's just technobabble to justify abuse.
Bottom line is that whatever blockchain size is and whatever TB disks nodes buy doesn't change the fact that Bitcoin is not a cloud storage service.

That's a different story and it can not happen at the same time with being open source. Unless the project is unpopular and nobody cares enough to look through the source code, such an obvious attack vector is found rather quickly.

There has been a lot of cases where the companies use "buzzwords" to attract customers who would later lose their money. Like Binance calling the centralized alt-platform a DEX, or closed source wallets call themselves safe and throw around terms like "non-custodial".

When it comes to security, when certain things are lacking your security is as good as compromised. So when you see a wallet developing team making a silly reasoning like this trying to justify being closed-source, you should know that something is seriously wrong:

I honestly don't see how you can even begin to compare the two. They are like apples and oranges.

In Ordinals Attack you are storing arbitrary data (like bytes representation of an image) in the bitcoin blockchain by exploiting a flaw in the Taproot protocol. That is to treat blockchain as a cloud storage.

In Lightning Network the only thing you do on-chain is to send bitcoin in normal bitcoin transactions to a normal bitcoin address whenever you open/close a channel. There is no extra junk data being stored on chain. That is to treat blockchain as a payment system (what every other tx is doing too).

It is not a claim, it is a fact.
If you pay for a bar of gold but in return they hand you a piece of wood painted yellow, what would you call that?

In case of Ver, newbies went on google and searched for "how to buy bitcoin". Then they found a website that ended with ".com" and was called "bitcoin" so they went there thinking they have found the "official" bitcoin website. Then they clicked on "buy bitcoin" and ordered "bitcoin" and paid for "bitcoin" hoping to receive "bitcoin" but instead they received a garbage called bcash.
If that is not called a scam, I don't know what is!

You are correct.
The Ordinals Attack lost some of its hype so the number of junk transactions went down very slightly. It is too soon to celebrate it though since the attack is still ongoing and the exploit is not fixed yet.
Another major contributed is the price stagnation which always leads to lower trading volume hence less on-chain transactions (less transfer to and from exchanges) hence bringing down the mempool congestion.