Yes scalability is a big problem to bitcoin network and I know we will all be looking at increasing the block size, this has long been discussed and that was what brought the soft fork of segwit address using weight unit or virtual bytes instead of normal size unit and also the hard fork which is the BCH which I don’t think is doing well.

Once again the risk of having a bigger block size remains that the security of the bitcoin network will be tested. The higher the block size the higher the blockchain grows faster and this in turn makes it costly for one to run his own full node. If the number of node runners decreases then the decision of the network will be centralized to few nodes.

The higher the block size the less fee the paid to miners will be ( which is what we want ) but this will incentive the miners and probably result into them leaving the market most especially as the block reward is reducing. The lesser the miners are the less decentralize bitcoin network becomes

That's because throughput of Ethereum and Bitcoin is very small. Let's use this simple analogy, we have a funnel and a bottle of jar and we want to fill it with some grains, assume the transactions to be grains and the outlet of the funnel is tiny but grains(tansactions) like 10-15 can pass through but we have many of them that want to pass  through fastly but then you can bribe the owner person making the grains to pass through some amount to get pass sharply, then definitely everyone will want to impress the person with high amount to get pass quickly. That's basically how the fee work, the more the network get busy, people will be ready to pay sharply to get transaction through and so the fee skyrocketed.

Ethereum chain has plenty of erc20 tokens and the more people use the chain, the more busy if becomes and people will have to pay high gas fees. This is similar to bitcoin as well, the network has been busy because of the ordinals and people are paying more fee to get transaction done quickly, that's why the fees get high and it's independent of the price of bitcoin or Ether.

It seems that you think that in order for the fees to increase we also need for the price of the asset in question to go up, but this is not really the case, it is true there is some correlation as when the price of bitcoin goes up the fees will go up as well.

But you are simply ignoring the real cause of this, and the reason is that the space of each block is limited, and if the demand for that space increases then the price we need to pay as fees to get our transaction included in a block increases as well, and right now the network is being congested by all the ordinals being released recently.

It doesn't move by the fees are moving are simple to explain with BTC, it's because there is BRC-20 ordinals that has been clogging the network. It's just not a simply P2P, just like Bitcoin, and so it needed more space, and it can occupy up to 4MB in size. And with that block size, it can congest the network because it will have to include high fees. And there are also speculation that is as deliberate attack by some entities.

So with that, we can conclude that increasing transaction fees is not equal to increasing price.

If this kind of attacks will stop, we can go back to normal, 1 sat/vB transaction and everyone should be happy about it. And so the question will those entities or BRC-20 ordinals developer/supporter stop minting or will they continue and then let Bitcoin developers come up with a layering solution?

It's something that as a newbie you should get used to if you're looking for a long-term commitment with the crypto industry, cause you're going to get sick of this charade every time there's a price surge or a bull run's imminent.

To put it simply, when the network (the blockchain of the coin you're invested in) is congested, from multiple people either buying or selling cryptocurrencies all at the same time, to counteract and make it so transactions are stabilized within the network, transaction fees are increased. It's part of the simple law of supply and demand tango, wherein when there's a higher supply there's lower demand and therefore cheaper price, and when the supply's lower, the demand increases and so the prices shoot up as well.

I hope this answers your questions, and I hope this doesn't discourage you from furthering your journey with cryptocurrencies. I promise you that the good outweighs the bad here (so far, at least) so stick around if you can!

Transaction fee depends on blockchain congestion, and you pay it via native token of that blockchain (Bitcoin > BTC, Ethereum >ETH), it has nothing to do with dollar price.

That is what he said. He even highlight both terms with quotes. This a good lesson though to some who still uses the term fee or transaction fee for both BTC and altcoins but I rarely heard that someone will say gas price/fee when they are talking about Bitcoin. I read a couple replies and I see that they already answered the OP, so I wouldn't repeat it anymore.

Besides, scenarios like this aren't new anymore on crypto or for that two big coins. The only thing about BTC is that its transaction fees can return to normal soon, while I doubt if ETH can also do the same. It is seems that the issue about their high gas cost is becoming a permanent problem already but we aren't bother with it anymore as there are now lots of alternatives created that we can use.

For almost 2 days my transaction process was stuck and it had not been confirmed. It may take a week or more and it is clear that Bitcoin users are very fed up with this kind of heavy traffic. I agree that Ordinal is one of the factors inhibiting Bitcoin transactions and brings more disease when strange people are interested in adopting Ordinal. In my opinion the people who launched Ordinal are responsible for the breakdown of Bitcoin transactions, because of this congestion small investors are increasingly discouraged from buying Bitcoin for the long term especially when high gas fees also make centralized exchanges have a strong reason to withhold Bitcoin from their use.

Isn't this a loss?

I think I'd side with the elitists here and stand with keeping the block size of bitcoin at a 1mb limit, whilst looking at other options to earn the coveted scalability benefit. One of which is actually adding a real layer 2 solution in the bitcoin network that's more robust than the current lightning network we have, which I must say is not that good in terms of actually doing its job. We can also look into integrating a new consensus mechanism at least in this second layer and have all payments and transactions be processed there to make sure that fees are charged less.

At the end of the day, as long as the devs don't do shit about it, no amount of banning "violators" or "exploiters" is going to stop bitcoin from experiencing this problem we'll have this issue again and again.

The maximum block size in Bitcoin is 4 MB, it started since segwit integration in 2017.

The on chain network and lightning network are different, you can't force every users to use LN, but you have an option to use which network you want. Just like there are many Bitcoin addresses, after native segwit is widely adopted, I don't see any reason why people need to use legacy address.

It's not 100% decentralized anymore if there are few users can control it.