It is the US government that is in debt not FED as in Federal Reserve, so US is the one that would default.
Although it is not going to happen, they are just going to increase the debt ceiling sooner or later and keep on printing more money hence increasing the US national debt even more than the current $31.8 trillion.
(Ever since all this default talk began a couple of weeks ago the US national debt grew by about $200 billion lol).

Right now US regime is caught between choosing bad and worse.

• On one hand they should increase the debt ceiling and continue printing money to handle the massive budget deficit and the ridiculously high government expenses so that they can keep the sinking ship alive. But if they do that, it would worsen the inflation and FED would have to increase interest rates more while it is already too high and has caused recession in United States!
• On the other hand if they default on that debt, the whole US economy would crumble in a catastrophic way with markets crashing and most importantly the US dollar would tank. In a world where majority of countries are already dumping the dollar, USD tanking would forced them to speed up the dump and more countries would join the dumping party. This is while higher inflation and higher recession would overtake US.

This is why option #1 is going to be the less terrible choice...

The problem in 2019 wasn't liquidity, it was the economy that basically halted after the pandemic so they had to print money out of thin air and blow fake life into the dead economy.

In a decentralized currency the transactions has to be stored in a ledger that is immutable (something that won't change). That ledger is called the blockchain (a chain of blocks). In this chain, each block is linked to its previous block and it is timestamped and produced by performing a certain type of "work" on it referred to as "mining". This work is performed using computing power and it is computationally expensive based on the network's target.
The cost of mining accompanied by the fact that the nodes follow the chain with the most work makes tampering with the ledger expensive hence provides immutability.

This is not just stagnation of bitcoin price, it is the stagnation of global economy and more specifically the inflation+recession going on in US and EU. It is also unrelated to the US debt ceiling shenanigans since this "stagnation" has been going on ever since March and generally speaking we had the drop and prevention of the rise for the past year considering how the world economy fell apart in the same time!

Except that it is not a feature, it is an oversight. A mistake that the developers who introduced the new Witness Version 1 protocol (commonly known as Taproot) made when defining the consensus and standard rules that restricted this type of attack.
A mistake they did NOT make when introducing Witness Version 0 protocol and placed appropriate restrictions that prevented this type of attack.

We did do that!
After Witness Version 0 (commonly known as SegWit) soft fork using uncompressed public keys became non-standard and you won't be able to get such transactions propagated through the network.

Not everyone
We also did increase the block size since block size hasn't been 1 MB ever since 2017.

MIT license is a very simple license that basically has no restrictions which makes it perfect for a decentralized project such as Bitcoin that doesn't want any obstacles in front of its development, improvement and adoption.
This way you can create proprietary software on top of MIT licensed Bitcoin without restrictions but if it were something else like GPL they would have to do everything from scratch.

Here is what Satoshi said:

Nothing about a centralized altcoin collapsing has ever been "unexpected". We all know and very well expect them to fail sooner or later. History is also proof of that. It is not limited to stablecoins either, it is all the centralized altcoins that are doomed to fail.

It depends on the passphrase.
Obviously the BIP39 passphrase is an extra layer of security but depending on how the passphrase was generated it could be a strong layer of security or a weak/insignificant one. For example if a famous sentence was used (eg. the hard coded message in Genesis block) it provides nearly 0 security. On the other hand if it is generated randomly (eg. like a 24 word seed phrase is generated) then it can be considered a 256+ bit entropy on top of the mnemonic's 256 bit entropy.

Banks are not investment platforms, they are places where you store your fiat currency that continues losing its value due to inflation and constant money printing since fiat has no cap.
Bitcoin is also not an investment although it can act as one since its price has gone up in the long term so far and it also has tremendous amount of potential for more growth. Bitcoin is a currency that is in its infancy so it is still being adopted slowly by the world hence creating the volatile market and creating investment opportunities.

Ordinals is more of an attack against bitcoin than a protocol itself. It is exploiting the Bitcoin protocol to inject arbitrary data into the blockchain.

You can NOT issue tokens on bitcoin blockchain, it simply doesn't have that feature. What they call a "token" in Ordinals Attack is a fakery to scam people. As I said it is NOT part of the Bitcoin protocol.

In other words people are already taking advantage of this hype to scam more people every day.

You seem to not be aware that the biggest centralized stablecoin called Tether (USDT) was created in a similar fashion using Omni layer many years ago! It was a bad idea then and it is still a bad one today. Not to mention that neither Tether nor the garbage being created these days are tokens.

Volatility is what happens in the market, it is not a "feature of bitcoin"!

More adoption will reduce the volatility, as we have seen so far. You can't compare the volatility we have today with what we used to have in 2010 for example, it has been reduced. Extrapolating that, things should be more stable as the adoption grows.
But as for the regulation, it is not going to affect volatility. It is done by the government to have more control and be able to monitor people's finances. Not to mention that the market is already regulated with all the KYC that the exchanges enforce.

For starters he is part of the same regime, he is coming from outside in a different political party or anything like that. In simple terms he is a cog in the same machine. Assuming he takes the office (although impossible) he is not going to be allowed to do anything differently nor would he want to. The US dictatorship dubbed democracy runs and thrives on full control that the regime has on every aspects of their "subjects" lives. Specially their monetary transactions. Bitcoin threatens that control hence is a threat to the dictatorship regardless of who is in the office.

As for "killing bitcoin", it is not possible. They can fight bitcoin, harm it and postpone its mass adoption as they want but they will not be able to kill it.

Your post is only half correct. What you are missing is the similarities between dollar and yuan. They are both terrible if a country decides to reply only on those currencies that would be controlled by "others" not them. In other words if in 10 years from now we see dollar is replaced by yuan, that world will be the exact same world as today!

The only difference at this point is that China is not using Yuan as a weapon like US does. That means many countries prefer using Yuan instead of Dollar. But so far it seems like a passing thing before they build alternative means of trade.

This is exactly why the world is not replacing dollar with yuan, they are replacing dollar with bilateral agreements between countries to use other means of payment. For example among the ASEAN countries they have come up with agreements and infrastructure to use their own respective currencies (not USD and not CNY). Similarly if a country from ASEAN wants to trade with China they use similar bilateral agreements and use CNY and when they want to trade with US they use USD.
Either case, dollar is being abandoned at large.

Technically if US regime defaults on its debt it would crash US economy and the dollar. Which means technically bitcoin price should shoot up to the moon in a very short time.

However, in reality there has been a huge amount of market manipulation and propaganda against bitcoin that over the past couple of years (mostly since 2020) has been trying to convince people that whenever US market dump, then bitcoin should dump too. That means there is a good chance that when the US markets and US dollar dumps, so would bitcoin.

In long term on the other hand, I'd say bitcoin price will soar because of the severe economic problems United States is facing and how the dollar has been getting dumped as reserve currency.

Sometimes it is just them searching stuff on google and finding the answers on this forum and ending up signing up here. The reason why they seek merits can also be because of the limits that are placed on a brand new account like having to wait 6 minutes (?) to post again, limits on who they can send PM to or how many, not having avatar, etc.

It depends on what you mean by "smaller and larger".

* If it is purely based on size of a transaction then it must not be implemented at all because a transaction with for example 20 inputs is considered a "large" transaction, but actually this type of transaction should be encouraged not discouraged because it is consolidating outputs which actually helps improve scaling of bitcoin by optimizing the usage of the limited block space. That is a single tx with 20 inputs is smaller than 20 tx with 1 input each.
That means if the fee of such transaction is to be higher according to your question, they would be forced to create multiple transactions with smaller number of inputs to pay a lower total fee which would increase the total size they waste.

* If it is based on the "garbage" data they insert into the transaction using exploits in the protocol like what the Ordinals Attack is doing these days, then this method is not useful because we are talking about a vulnerability in the protocol that is being exploited, doing anything other than fixing the exploit itself is just wrong!

Considering how this attack has become possible by exploiting an oversight in the Taproot script validation rules, this is a Taproot related issue not a SegWit related one.

That's true but it depends on what we mean by "cloud storage". If it is the very small size we allow to be stored in an OP_RETURN output for example, then we can't prevent that and we aren't. But if it is the exploitation of protocol to store any size without limit (except the block size) then we can prevent it well. We've done that for the past 14 years.

It won't break anything and saying that a single transaction with 1 input/output must not be allowed to be ~4 MB in size to store garbage on chain to scam idiots who would pay for this garbage, is not called "subjective criteria".

Well there is a big difference between usage and exploit.

The thing about Ordinals is that if they move to another chain (aka a much better solution) it will simply die because it is not only useless but also they are not doing anything new! The NFT nonsense existed before on platforms like ethereum that are created with the sole purpose of token creation.
The only reason why they created it on top of Bitcoin by exploiting the protocol was to be able to hype it up and make some money by scamming newbies.

ROFL. It is like the thief who was caught red-handed but was saying he is innocent. In any case you comment was priceless, it made me laugh so hard.

Yeah, that's the supply I was talking about although considering the huge amount of contradictory propaganda that were spread about this cloud I hesitate to bring it up. Besides there are far bigger problems involved in the long term after the usage of these nuclear munitions start. From the water that runs through Ukraine to the grains they farm and may want to ship out abroad.
I do hope the global market takes this into consideration.