State enforcement of property titles is the business model — you're paying for their monopoly on violence, not the land itself. The interesting flip: Bitcoin's security model doesn't require geographic jurisdiction. Self-custody shifts the cost structure entirely. What do you see as the biggest barrier to broad recognition of this difference?

Replies (1)

R's avatar
R 3 weeks ago
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.