Explain in reasonable terms why Litecoin would be worse as a cryptographic wealth reserve.

You can't, because it's the exact same thing except it's a halving behind and the coins are still being introduced more quickly relative to the current supply.

There's no serious reason why a currency can't be a store of value as well.  Most fiat holders regard their fiat to be a store of value even though it isn't.

10-4.  I think of BTC as a Store of Value (similar to "Reserve currency status"), but with rapidly changing value...  (LOL?)

But, Bitcoin might LOSE all of this should the Miners and Developers not get their acts together.  They could kill Bitcoin.

And should that look like would happen, I will sell my BTC and just buy gold.

It would be no worse. However its prospects for going mainstream are the weakest of all the top  5 coins on CMC. Both factors contribut to value.

BS FUD

This is something I've always been suspicious of, and I'm glad to see there are more people looking at Bitcoin as a way of storing value outside of the fiat system and not as a means of buying menial shit that holds little value beyond the instant it exists.
I enjoyed watching the video and I hope that there are more videos like it covering similar topics, but it definitely gives a very good explanation as to some of the bad shit that's happening and why it happens.
I guess it really is true that everything happens for a reason.

blockstream:
kill of certain % of pools = centralise
rekt other brands of nodes = centralise.

non blockstream
allow open choice no deadlines = diverse peer network
..
if you get the reddit scripts of FUD out of your brains...  you will see that having the mainblock bigger than 1mb does NOT mean centralisation.
stop using the 2 year old fake FUD of gigabytes by midnight.

the min spec of 2009 (raspberry Pi 1 + average internet)
vs
the min spec of 2015/16 (raspberry Pi 3 + average internet)
are different.

even core admit that 8mb is safe and 4mb is more than safe..

so crying about "2mb is bad" or dynamics is bad is just wrong on so many levels because you fail thinking realistically

nodes will only grow if nodes can happily work
pools will only change if nodes exist to happily work

meaning nodes set the pace..!!!

stop reading the gigabytes by midnight FUD and be realistic

---

secondly if people move over to locking funds into LN permanently or sidechains(AKA altcoin) permanently then bitcoin has failed.

rarity/scarcity without utility is not enough to keep a bitcoin 'value'
there are scientists that see many things that are rare but no one wants or cares to buy them if they have no utility.
bitcoin also needs utility. otherwise its just like 42coin .. scarce but useless

so anyone saying destroy nodes, destroy utility, dont let the block size grow NATURALLY. and start shouting fud of gigabytes my midnight and UASF bomb pools and certain nodes. are the ones that want to turn bitcoin into 42coin.. whether they realise it or not

I don't really care to convince you, but I'll explain anyway for everyone's benefit...  you can believe me or not:

The security of the bitcoin network doesn't depend on the majority of users to FULLY validate their own transactions.
SPV already provides essentially full security.  In fact, there's never been a single case of any losing coins because of SPV.

As Satoshi explained in the white paper, as the network gets large the only people who need to run full nodes are those
that create coins (miners).

One thing is becoming suddenly clear to a lot of people:

The reasons that Bitcoin has not been allowed to scale are not technical in nature.  The technical arguments have all been debunked.
The reasons Bitcoin hasn't scaled are purely business-related, strategic, and political.

It is not in their best interests to kill bitcoin though. They would lose out a ton on their equipment and their companies would be out of business for the most part.

If btc dies it doesn't mean crypto is dead though, that is the beauty of everything. We have other viable coins to go into.