I would also push back against the claim that bitcoin is the first thing where a truly pure property right can be realized given its attendant properties. I think this is an oft overstated case by people trying to philosophize about bitcoin and how it revolutionizes the concept of property.

Bitcoin still completely relies on property as a social construct, in practice. Arguing that it doesn't because a seed phrase exists only in your head is making a lot of unchecked assumptions which seem to be wrong upon a closer look.

1. That the ability to extract a seed phrase from someone's brain is impossible. Either by technology, chemical manipulation of the brain, or by a threat of violence.

2. That accidental leakage of the private key doesn't, at some level, remain a persistent threat.

I think both of these cases seem apparently intractable problems that leaves bitcoin purely in the *property as a social construct* camp. People who say otherwise are taking too much for granted, and as I accuse Rothbard above, have poorly constrained definitions of what property *is*.