That legitimate stores of value are typically not that simple to manipulate.

Like real estate?

You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true.

Liquidity is necessary, and a good marker, but not sufficient.

> You are equating legitimacy with liquidity, and the that isn't necessarily true.

How so? Liquidity is a measurement of how easy it is to trade, and if it's easy to trade there are many people/entities that believe it's "legitimate" currency, or they wouldn't trade for it

Parent said "store of value" not "currency". Liquidity is probably sufficient for a currency (depending on the features of the liquidity), but it is not sufficient for a store of value.

Fair enough; store of value additionally requires restricted supply so that the value isn't debased. But in the context of this thread, that just strengthens the argument that 'Bitcoin is different'.

It also requires a value proposition that doesn't depend on the current zeitgeist, among other things. Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change, lest they be left behind with the norms and dogmas.

This is where I personally think bitcoin fails.

> Society changes, and stores of value need to exist outside that change

I completely agree. I don't think this is different from saying the store of value needs to stay liquid tho. Bitcoin is currently very illiquid compared to many things, but there's no reason to think it's liquidity will decrease, and based on trends and first principles of what makes something a good 'money', significant reason to believe liquidity will continue to increase