True, because the security of PoW is dependent not only on code but also in hashrate.
Overall, using SegWit addresses will help us to reduce transaction costs, have a better network performance and future-proofing for additional improvements and features for Bitcoin.
I have a question about this specific point. It's true, as you mentioned, that using SegWit addresses helps reduce transaction costs and improve network performance. My question is, why do some exchanges and wallets still use Legacy addresses? I mean, these old addresses have become a burden on the network. So, why aren't they being eliminated? Why do most exchanges still provide users with old addresses?
I think it is dependent on the one supported by the system. Compatibility issues would also be one of the major parts. Other exchanges that are programmed to use legacy addresses may find it hard to transition to segwit because of security risks when in transition. Since there is a need to update/upgrade stuff, other exchanges left it be until they are confident enough that there will be no vulnerability instance that may happen during the transition or they have enough funds to hire a competent developer. Remember exchanges are not like having a personal wallet updating from a legacy address to segwit address, it is somehow complex and if their tech team is not competent enough, they might suffer losses during the update either via glitches or operation delay.
Can the Bitcoin community pressure these exchanges to prevent them from providing Legacy addresses? I don't mean eliminating existing old addresses, of course, but rather preventing users from being given Legacy addresses and only giving them SegWit or Taproot addresses.
I think they can but they won't do it because it is the right of the exchange to provide the type of address they like. All the community can do is avoid these exchanges and not directly coerce/pressure them.