whoever paid for those SPAM attacks
Those were not spam attacks. They were stress tests. Rude and inconsiderate, with reproachable motives, but mere stress tests. A spam attack will be quite different (and worse).
Nah, [ damage to bitcoin's image ] is what XT has done to BTC already ...
Another inversion of the facts... It was Adam Back, Ph. D., who screamed to the world that raising the size limit and/or having an alternative to Core would destroy bitcoin. Well, it seems that some part of the world believed him...
However, this price drop is still a "minor correction". Wait until 2016, when the world will realize that bitcoin is useless for e-payments because no one can bear the delays, AND for any sensitive non-payment use too, because it can be easily crippled by a spam attack.
[ The five largest Chinese miners already accepted larger blocks ] were approached directly by the XT goons and their response?
Yes, Gavin actually talked to them, as well as to the other major players. That is what Adam calls "populist tactics". While the Blockstream devs intended to introduce changes by a different political process: secure commit control of the Core, and buck the community.
that can be obtained by setting fixed fees that clients know in advance; and clients who pay must get what they paid for.
No it can't. Nothing controls the fees that pools/miners will accept but each pool/miner themselves.
Yes, bitcoin still has several design flaws that need to be fixed before it can achieve its design goal. Like that one. Or the lack of inflation or demurrage, that got it appropriated by a legion of speculators and snake oil salesmen.