Impaler was absolutely wrong about security of Bitcoin adding nothing to its strength as a store of value for rather evident reasons which I have shown (it works the same way as taxes and legalization of money do), but this doesn't make your argument more valid. What you say here is a consequence of the factors that back up Bitcoin, but this is not what gives it strength or backs it up by itself. In fact, I have already explained this in one of my previous posts in this thread...
I've said that an asset needs BOTH security and backing to be a good store-of-value, and BTC has security (of a sort) but no Backing. I'm arguing that no amount of security can compensate for the lack of backing, the relationship is Multiplicative not Additive, a Million x Zero = Zero, you seem to be arguing that if something is just Secure enough that Backing is unnecessary. If we reverse the relationship and hypothesize an asset that's backing is perfect but is impossible to secure from theft, no one would call that asset a good store-of-value.