Over 2300 students were arrested in 49 universities across United States only because they were saying: "Stop the Genocide of Palestinians"!!!

It won't solve anything for the same reason people are still using P2PKH/P2Sh addresses even though we added SegWit many years ago and it offers a lot of benefits.
An opt-in option is not going to help much with privacy specially in a world where centralized places are rejecting CoinJoin transactions (opt-in) they can reject the said opt-in privacy feature too hence forcing its adoption to remain low which means it won't solve anything.

This is not a very accurate statement.
There were multiple mining pools that were inside China and a lot of hashrate (many of which was located outside China) connected to those pools. Pretty much the same thing is happening with pools in other countries like the situation that is growing in USA.
That is a big distinction to make because in this case China did not and could not "control" that hashrate.

Not quite.
With a high percentage of hashrate, one can perform certain attacks but they can not change the consensus rules (if that's what you mean by dictate the software in use). They can pull off 51% attacks to double spend but what would that achieve except kill Bitcoin?

They also won't be able to attack Bitcoin for long in my opinion because such a move would bring on a lot of public outrage which could even lead to a hard fork changing the mining algorithm.

Bitcoin is not big enough to have an impact on the world economy. Not to mention that if China wanted to do that, they would do it without needing something as small as Bitcoin. For example they could dump the US bonds and crash US economy and burn half the world's economy with that. Or simply stop exporting goods to certain countries including US and EU and crash their economy by causing hyperinflation,....

That logic is flawed in this context.
If you have hashrate you "insert" your blocks and make profit. If you perform an attack, you'd crash the price and doesn't matter if you mine 100% of the blocks, you won't make any profit.

That requires a hard fork which means it requires the entire network to accept that change and upgrade to a new software. Otherwise they'd create an altcoin and what they'd sped would not be Satoshi's coins.

Similarly requires a hard fork.

Any kind of attack on Bitcoin would first crash its price. Depending on the attack it could be significant which means a lot of the goals you listed above would never be reached (like making profit).

Bitcoin is not big enough and is not weaved into the geopolitics to have such an impact.

It would force developers to get off their fannies to start working on decentralizing mining more. Like introducing a much better protocol for mining pools.

I'm more worried about US performing such attacks on Bitcoin than China doing so.
For starters, China doesn't have any significant hashrate ever since they banned mining. And also China is not known for destabilizing global economy like this. In fact China prefers more stability in the world so that they can make more money.

US regime on the other hand benefits from chaos, whether it is armed conflict that fills the pockets of the "Lords of War" or it is economic chaos where they can pull off their Ponzi scheme commonly known as the dollar.

You don't want people who are only interested in your money and what you spend for them! It is also not a fact that people are only interested in you for your money. There are of course many who are like this but it is not everyone. You just have to find those people instead and then get rid of the others.

Saving money is not a good idea unless you are saving up to reach a target to make an investment. Because fiat currency (which you are falsely calling money) is not a store of value, it experiences inflation and if there is a financial crisis it will lose more of its value. So it should be invested to keep its value when fiat dumps.

Git is the protocol and Github is the implementation and the host of that protocol to share code. There is no viable alternative for that host that is not centralized or located in the same jurisdiction. For example some suggest Gitlab but it is pretty much the same as Github, it is centralized and just another US based company (GitLab Inc. with headquarters San Francisco).

That's true but they are still exploiting the protocol in the same manner regardless of what size they occupy (the same OP_FALSE OP_IF exploit) to inject an arbitrary size data into the chain.

There is an accepted method of storing arbitrary data in transactions through OP_RETURN that is limited to 80 bytes and is also easily pruned from the UTXO set since they are provably unspendable. Other methods are not acceptable and are damaging like creating an unspendable output that can not be purged from the UTXO set so it remains there forever.

The same "we" that has been deciding what can or can not be done up to the Ordinals Attack!
For example the same "we" that didn't allow you to inject an arbitrary data as that dummy item that is popped from the stack in the OP_CHECKMULTISIG(VERIFY) op codes.

I don't understand your logic here. At the end of the day even if gold was distributed equally among people, it still has a utility and that utility gives it value so it's price can never drop down to zero.

You see price of everything is partly determined by what happens in the market (holders, day traders, hypes, crashes, panic sells, FOMOs,...) but also the other part is the underlying value that is never zero as long as there is a utility.

Like gold, bitcoin also has utility. Regardless of its distribution people can continue using it as a medium of exchange and as a store of value. So its price will never drop down to zero.

There are other issues in this statement as well:
Value is not the same as price. Price is the number we associate to bitcoin on the market, it  doesn't necessarily reflect its (intrinsic) value. Price could be higher than the value which we would call bitcoin overpriced and we should expect a drop at that point or it could be lower which would make it underpriced and we should expect a rise.

I don't know what a miner (with a SHA256 ASIC) switching to AI means
But it is normal to see some miners leave whenever the mining income goes down whether it is through halving where the block reward goes down or whether it is through a market crash (eg. price falling from $20k to $3k back in 2018) and their income goes down.
This process is not causing "oligopoly", there are still a lot of places around the world where the cost of mining is too low to become hard to mine even with price drops or reward cuts, etc. so mining remains spread and decentralized enough.

It has always been impossible to accurately predict the market movements. For example it was expected to see a drop after the halving hype ended but I personally never expected a crash all the way down to $56.5k.
Is it over? Possibly, since over the past 3 days we've been seeing a reversal and setting green candles.

Dead cat bounce requires bitcoin to have died and be in a bear market where price continues going down over the long haul. This was just a correction after the halving hype big-rise.

If you zoom out and watch the chart over the past 5 months you can see we have been on the rise (starting from ~$38k) and we are heading to $70k again to test that resistance for the 4th time. However, this time it is not just halving hype that is the driving force, it is the halving itself (the fresh supply that was reduced by 50%) that lowered the supply and reduced the sell pressure.

The only thing weird here is that if you use the same tool to see fees on which network is higher, you get a different results.
Blockcypher reports higher fee on mainnet compared to testnet 0.00069 BTC/KB vs 0.00032 BTC/KB
mempool.space reports higher fee on testnet compared to mainnet 25 sat/vB vs 47 sat/vB

Sometimes these fee estimators either have bugs or use different methodology that returns different fee estimation. I believe mempool.space is more accurate though.

That is simply impossible because Bitcoin was not designed that way. If we add privacy features into the existing protocol (eg. though some weird soft fork) that won't fix anything because opt-in privacy is not improving the whole system.

The alternative is a hard fork that fundamentally changes a lot of things about the Bitcoin protocol. Why break what is already working fine and risk the whole system crumbling down? Most importantly why do it when something like Monero already exists?

A better solution is to work on privacy improving techniques that are more decentralized and get people to use them more. But solutions that are built on top of Bitcoin (like decentralized CoinJoin). It would still be opt-in and won't improve the whole system but at the same time it won't require any kind of fork and change in the protocol that could break things.

The plan to create a new currency is a serious one and has been being discussed for some time now. All you can say is that the said plan is not yet agreed upon by all members to start discussing the details and making it public, like announcing it in the conference you say you've participated in.

The problem is coming up with an agreement specially with weasel regimes like the Chinese who want to force Yuan on everyone replacing the dollar and nobody wants that
It is impossible to predict what they'd do in the end.

The "can't" I said is the answer to this statement of yours:
You are saying "blocks" not a sequence of transactions that start from a duplicated coinbase tx. That threw me off the issue you are raising.

You are forgetting that the mess we are seeing is something that started recently and we are at block height 2.8 million. Only the coinbase tx of the same height can be duplicated, meaning you can NOT have coinbase of block #2.8 million as block #2 and create that "sequence" of UTXOs since the height is included inside the coinbase signature script.

If we migrate to version 4 (a brand new chain from block #1) and make the difficulty manipulation harder, it would take many years (50+) to get to block #2.8 million and by then nobody would even remember the said shittokens.

First of all what you are doing is not encrypting (SHA256 is also not an encryption algorithm). It is called computing checksum.

Secondly, since this checksum is very small (2 bytes) and the algorithm (single SHA256 hash of UTF8 string) is too fast (inexpensive) so it is not that hard to brute force and create a fake address with the same checksum. I computed this address in less than a second with the same checksum.

Of course this is just a concept to show how easy it is to find a "collision" when the checksum is very small. In practice the attacker needs the key to the malicious address which means they have to perform a process similar to generating a "vanity address", an address that has the same starting characters.
The extra 16 bit checksum is definitely adding an extra layer for authenticity check but but it doesn't slow down that process enough to be impactful.

P.S. Maybe the checksum algorithm could be changed into something far more expensive to make brute forcing harder. For example using a memory expensive KDF like scrypt with high iteration count.

Federal Reserve says interest rates will stay at two-decade high until inflation further cools

You can't really expect any kind of interest rate cuts when the government in office is increasing the national debt by a trillion dollar every 100 days!!!. The worst part is that every day they keep the interest rates high they have to pay a ridiculous amount of "interest" on those bonds they've been dumping on any idiot who buys them which would further increase inflation...

We're also seeing its effect on bitcoin price although I wouldn't say this crash is all because of it but it is still a contributing factor. Keep in mind that interest rates in a lot of countries around the world are still high and they are all causing recession that in turn affects bitcoin price.

I honestly never understood this and I've seen so many of those who ask for high amounts of tbtc say it. What are these tests that need to run "several thousands" times in a live network that can not be abstracted away using IoC design or something like that or even run in Regtest instead.

But coinbase tx is just a tx. There is nothing special about it in this context ("replaying" between networks). You set the version and the outputs of that tx and you get the same exact tx.

No you can't. Because the difficulty is different and also any block in any network is positioned inside a chain. You can't take out a single block from the middle of that chain and place it on top of another chain.
For example block 1,234,567 in Testnet3 is referencing block 1,234,566 on Testnet3 if you take that and try to place it on top of for example Mainnet chain at 1,234,567 it is rejected because the 1,234,566 reference is not found.
This chain also goes back all the way to a hardcoded Genesis block that is unique to that specific chain to prevent exactly what you explained.

If it is possible, it doesn't mean it will remain possible. Github is still centralized and can change its rules in a blinking of an eye like coming up with some excuse and banning Tor.

Not to mention that the problem with centralized Github is also the code/repository itself that can be purged from their servers without prior notice if the order comes down from the US government. They have already done it once at a large scale about 5 years ago, who's to say they're not going to do the same to for example Samourai-wallet-like projects?

Yes that's what @takuma sato said.

Bitcoin blockchain is not meant for data storage and Bitcoin is not a cloud storage. It is a payment system and the blockchain is ledger for monetary transactions. So it doesn't matter if it is 1 byte or 1 terabyte that you are injecting into the chain by using the exploit in the protocol, it is still abusive.

So use OP_RETURN instead as @ABCbits said or better yet use one of those data-storage altcoins. There are a couple of them that are created for this exact purpose.

There has always been faucets giving coins and the only complains I've seen so far have been from people who want large amounts and the worst part is that I have not seen any reasonable arguments for needing such amounts as opposed to using something like regtest.
So I wouldn't say "it is not easy to obtain testnet coins".

What the future holds?
This attack is not going to change anything, after all this is not the first time testnet is under a miners' attack.
But if the trades continue and testnet coins start gaining a value and scams form around it, we can see testnet3 having the same fate as its predecessors and we may enter testnet4 era.
Although if we do, I think we should come up with better mining rules that are not complicated like signet and not as vulnerable like testnet3.

The problem with the Ordinals Attack has never been its uselessness. The problem is that it is treating Bitcoin, aka a payment system, as a cloud storage.

Can you say DNS is useless? No. But storing it in bitcoin blockchain is problematic. This is why Satoshi and anybody who understands Bitcoin is against such things.

That's not a solution though. When we are talking about Github, it is not just about fake accounts and PGP keys. We are talking about a platform where code is being shared with its version control system (git), changes/issues/pull-requests are being shared and reviewed publicly, and a lot more features.

To get rid of that centralization, we need a decentralized platform that offers all of this not just a place to store PGP keys.
Not to mention that storing PGP keys inside a transaction does NOT solve anything whatsoever. It is just as arbitrary data and an attack on Bitcoin as any other Ordinals transaction. PGP relies on Web of Trust not on where the key is stored.