You are right, it was a confusion between (the irrelevant) Int32.Max and 64-bit integers! The cap is 2⁶⁴=18,446,744,073,709,551,615 bit = 2,305,843 TB.

Pretty easily: reduce the number of blocks to be hashed. For example if there weren't any blocks found after X minutes you require the miner to hash total count - 10k blocks.

But keep in mind that even though there are work arounds to all the things I pointed out above (including the precomputation of hash itself) the biggest unsolvable problem is that nodes will have a very hard time verifying each block since they too would have to take the long road which would get increasingly hard as the chain grows.

It's about the share of the total work that your computing power (GPU) could perform. Any decent cryptocurrency with PoW algorithm surely has enough miners that the difficulty is so high that you'd need at least a top tier expensive GPU. And in most cases with only one GPU you would be performing such a small portion of the work that your reward won't even reach withdrawal limit.

That's definitely correct. In some news articles I have read some 5 year plans. For example they are building Bitcoin City and a lot of other infrastructure that won't even be completed in short term.
Besides El Salvador is among the poor countries but about $60 million in bitcoin for a country with $25 billion GDP (0.24%) doesn't look that big to be honest.

In any case this is a very exciting experiment to watch over the coming years and see how this poor country is going to be like in like 5 to 10 years from now. This could provide good information for other countries with bigger and better economy to decide whether they want to start adding bitcoin to their reserves.

Because BTC is not a shitcoin.

In PoW the computing power and the fact that by consensus rules we follow the chain with the most work is used to ensure reversing the blocks is so costly that it can be considered impossible. That way we ensure immutability of the blockchain.

Liquidity doesn't change whether or not you hold or stake a coin.

Basically, in early days when developers were more interested in improving the technology, someone came up with the idea that a new algorithm could be introduced where nodes process transactions and get paid for doing so. Hence Proof of Stake came to life.
But this was a very flawed approach for many reasons. From different attack vectors to the economical design flaws (you get paid for having money!).

Depends on the coin. Early coins were as I explained above, exploring changes in Bitcoin technology. Newer coins are mainly using PoS or planning to switch to PoS so that they can make sure their coin is going to die when the miners abandon it due to high difficulty or price dump.
In some cases like ETH they are making the switch to also ensure their own revenue since they hold tens of millions of ether and in PoS you get paid to own that coin!!!

The algorithm has to allow that.

Your arguments are more philosophical rather than technical and real. If we start going down that path we would soon realize that even your being is not decentralized simply because you can philosophically argue about anything and bring reasons why you found truth where there is no facts.

Let me clarify some stuff you said individually while others gave you good explanations in general:
Bitcoin is as it has always been a decentralized, censorship resistant global currency. Being a currency means it is also a store of value. In fact SOV is one of the characteristics of any currency.

It is not for security reasons. It is one of many decisions made by the inventor of Bitcoin to make it so that the blocks be found every 10 minutes on average. This decision provides certain characteristics such as limiting the number of stale blocks to a negligible number.

The same way any other payment system that has extremely long settlement time (up to 6 months in some cases) have been used long before bitcoin was invented and are still used to this day.

Nobody is asking you to wait that long. If you are purchasing some goods online, by the time they want to ship it to your address the transaction has lots of confirmation (not just one). If you are purchasing something small offline (face to face) like a sandwich the merchant doesn't care about confirmation because that is the risk they are already taking when accepting other forms of payment including cash (fake bills, reversing digital payments, credit card fraud,...). If you are purchasing something more expensive (like a car or a house) then the process of transferring money through any other method is already hundred times slower than a single confirmation on bitcoin network!

In short your arguments on their own may make some small sense but in comparison to any existing payment method they have no legs.

Security in bitcoin (and its alternative copies) transaction confirmation is defined by the cost of reversing that block. In bitcoin the cost of that for one confirmation is usually equal to at least dozens of confirmation on the alternative chain. In other words it would take hours on altchains to get what bitcoin would offer in 10 minutes.

We don't envision such a thing. Bitcoin was not supposed to and is not going to become "only currency of the earth".
You can't even get two people to agree on one thing, how can you make almost 200 countries/governments to accept a single currency!

I believe they are going to sell $1 billion bitcoin backed bonds without actually selling any bitcoin!

Has anyone gathered all the prices they made their purchases to see if the result is profit or loss? For example 150BTC was bought at $48,670.
$52k-$54k is hardly the tip though, when price went to $70k and is currently at $48k-$49k.

You are a bit confused and are contradicting yourself here.
If you are comparing "fiat money system" with bitcoin then you should compare it as a currency versus currency. In which case both server different purposes and depending on the purpose and situation each can be preferable.
But if you want to focus on investment then you can't even compare investing in shitcoins with "money system"!

Because people who trade shitcoins through these apps are mainly gamblers who don't care about much except profit making in short term on the bets they are making. They obviously don't care about quality of service and accept any low quality, risky, even shady service as long as they can hope for a profit.
Consequently these services never improve since they have their customer and are making their profit.

Then they shouldn't invest in shitcoins in first place. Buy bitcoin and store it in a bitcoin wallet instead of some shady software found on the internet promising P2P trades.

First of all there is no such thing as "bitcoin cooperation" or any kind of centralized "bitcoin official" to do anything to the shitcoin market.
Secondly why should bitcoiners even care about what is going on in the shitcoin scene?

You don't need to run a full node to mine bitcoin (sadly). Almost all bitcoin miners connect to a mining pool that runs a full node on their behalf. That means 100k individual miners could connect to a single pool that represents 1 node.

Luckily the world has almost 200 countries, many of which have already accepted bitcoin with open arms.

It definitely is interesting to see new applications being built using the Lightning Network and I'm sure there are use cases for it too. I'm merely pointing out that such services are definitely not free and it obviously is centralized, for example it already doesn't accept users from a bunch of countries because it is centralized and has to comply with some arbitrary laws.

It is neither slow nor expensive to make on-chain bitcoin transactions!
Here is $67,715 moved 3 days ago instantly on-chain using $0.05 fee.
https://blockchair.com/bitcoin/transaction/e4a11cbc0c1b5e17c7c0e88be0ba946f2f625183a4d4075a5d1e8502838d124c

Generally speaking converting from and to fiat costs an additional exchange fee that makes the whole process of sending money using bitcoin "extremely expensive and slow".

It is definitely not free.
FYI Strike charges between 0.1% to 0.3% and they set the exchange rate so it could be higher which in my experience it usually is. For example if price is $49,310 right now your buy price would be $50,100 and your sell price is suddenly $48,200 and they also charge that 0.3%. And that's the best case scenario, services like this give you worse rates if the amount is lower. For example for $10 you may get $52,500 and $46,000.

After all the company isn't offering services out of the goodness of their hearts! They are here to make profit.

I don't know why this whole topic feels like an advertisement

If you read your own process again you'll realize how much centralization is involved in that approach already. Which mean there is no benefit in trying to squeeze a decentralized step such as NFTs into the whole thing.

You are making a big assumption here to justify your statements. How do you know people haven't already given the chance to these "token platforms" and their supposed technologies and were gravely disappointed?

Well this is a bitcoin forum and posting about other stuff makes it off-topic.
You also need to educate yourself about cryptocurrencies and the technology in general if you want to use them. For example at the very least you need to know what wallets are and what the safest way to use them is.

It is called cryptocurrency meaning it is supposed to be a currency. So far bitcoin is the only one worthy of the name. So you can earn this currency like you earn any other currencies (namely fiat). By doing jobs or converting one currency to another (eg. USD to BTC).

In the context of "whether jumbled n-word seed is safe" you are correct but generally speaking stats like this are very useful but as long as they are reported with full details that includes the word count, derivation path, extra word (passphrase) length, and finally the hardware specs.
That way if you are trying to recover a similar case you could have some idea about how long it could take. Which is why I added the specs used in calculation above.

To be fair you can't just mine (alternative PoW algorithms) with any CPU or GPU either, you'd need a very strong one and in most cases you can't even mine with a single GPU, you'd need a GPU rig that consists of multiple units.

Price continuing to go up has nothing to do with the supercycle. In fact one indication of the end of such cycles is if price continues to go up but at a slower pace.

For example take previous cycle. We had about 13000% rise in that whole cycle. In comparison in this cycle we only had a much smaller 2100% rise. To repeat the same cycle (that includes the big bear market) price needs to first rise up as much (which means reaching $400k+) in a very short time (like 3 months for example) then the bubble blows up and we enter the bear market.
If price stops the big rises here and instead we start seeing a much slower rise and a price like $400k is reached in a year then the "cycle" will have ended successfully.

Keep in mind that FUD and other online nonsense doesn't affect the long term projection. They just create chaos in short term.

It won't work because miners will end up doing practically one block compression regardless of the size considering the way hash algorithms are designed and the fact that blockchain is immutable. Another problem is that you would create a hard cap on blockchain size since hash algorithms can not compute hash of an unlimited size message, even though it is a big cap. For example for SHA256 this is capped at ~2.1 TB (the cap is so much bigger).

Another issue with this idea is that it defeats one of the main principles of PoW which is a computation that is very hard to finish but super easy to validate. In other words you have to spend a lot of time computing the nonce that gives the desired hash but it only takes a nanosecond to verify it on any hardware. A regular node would not be able to validate a PoW if it has to compute hash of the entire blockchain each time for each block.

So lets take a look at some hash algorithms:
SHA2
In this algorithm message is broken into smaller blocks and hash state is updated for each block. For the last block the size and a padding is added to the end and a final compression is performed to update hash state.
If you have a 3 GB message + a new block you can compute the hashstate for 3 GB message up until the final block and store it in memory then add the new block and update hashstate and then set final block.
Repeat the same thing for 3 GB message + new block + new block with the same hashstate you had in memory to essentially only compress one or two blocks.

SHA3 (Keccak)
Is slightly more complicated but the same optimization applies. In this algorithm we first split the data into smaller blocks and absorb each block in hashstate and after absorption is finished we switch to squeezing stage where the final hash is calculated.
To compute 3 GB message you could take the initial step to absorb the data as much as you can into the hashstate and leave the final absorption and final squeeze to when message was complete (the new block was added) and this intermediary value would be stored and helps skip a big chunk of work and the time would be shrunk to computing hash of a message that is very small (size between 1 and 2 blocks). The final absorption stage and the final squeeze are essentially like 2 block compressions and the speed of them is fixed regardless of data size.

Blake2b
Is very similar to what SHA256 looks like. Data is broken into small blocks and the hash state is updated for each block. Eventually there is a similar last block that includes padding and message length that can be postponed to when we have the final block.

RIPEMD160
Basically the same as SHA256.

That is not marketshare, it is market capitalization and it does not represent utility. It simply represents a gambling world where a lot of people participate in with a lot of money to make bets on useless virtual objects hoping to win big if they get pumped. The more casinos open (ie. the more number of coins and tokens created) the lower that ratio (62%) will become.
Otherwise bitcoin is dominating the real world when it comes to real usages.

I already called bullshit on the numbers produced by these guys at Cambridge a couple of months ago. Interestingly enough some people didn't want to have an open mind and realize that most of the statistics reported about bitcoin has always been largely flawed.
Similarly the 109,000 bitcoin mining IP addresses could also be challenged. But one thing is certain, there is still some small but considerable amount of hashrate coming from China.

Possibly because Chinese government is not this big evil dictatorship as it is portrayed. It is just as evil as other governments in any other country, which means they aren't raiding people's home every day for mining bitcoin. They basically don't care. They just didn't want big mining farms in their country.

Not exactly. Some years ago there weren't enough transactions to fill the block so the choice was either to leave the block not-full or include all transactions in mempool that included transactions with 0 fee. Nowadays the mempool is crowded with transactions and blocks are almost always full so there is no reason to include "free" transactions.