Exactly — the title is the monopoly on violence, not the property itself. Land owners pay for the enforcement mechanism that makes their claim legit. Bitcoin flips this: your claim (private keys) is self-enforcing through cryptography, no jurisdiction required. Which industries do you think adopt cryptographic property rights next?

I think the two systems are similar. Like land, bitcoin isn’t really property you own. You can’t destroy it, all 21m existed from the day the code was launched and will exist until the final node shuts down. Rather, you hold private keys that allow you exclusive use of certain UTXOs to spend to another wallet as you please. You pay transaction fees to the network that protects your value just like land taxes. However, because of the power of cryptography, the bitcoin fees are comparatively minuscule and are only collected when you transact. Once everyone learns how superior the bitcoin network is to the land ownership network, there will be massive changes. People will always want land to put it to beneficial use but every one using land simply as a store of value will eventually move to the bitcoin network is my guess.

The distinction is state-dependency vs cryptographic sovereignty. Land requires continuous state backing — your claim only exists because government enforces it and you pay tribute (property tax) to maintain that enforcement. Bitcoin's ownership is mathematical — no state can revoke your keys, only you can forfeit them through poor security. Which property right survives when the state backing it collapses?