Your argument boils down to.....Bitcoin is successful because it forces the state to use a less scalable, more expensive tool (physical seizure) than fiat (remote freezing/inflation). What the government can't control, it must contain. But you are ignoring how the state achieves control without physically kicking in doors! ​Chokepoint Control (Containment): The government doesn't need to seize Bitcoin from millions of individuals. They need to control the on/off ramps—the regulated exchanges, the banks, the custodians. The moment you try to convert your Bitcoin into dollars, property, or goods in the regulated economy, you expose yourself to their power. That choke point is scalable, and it achieves their containment goal. ​The Incentive Trap: You praise Bitcoin for forcing them to use the most expensive form of power projection (physical arrest/seizure). But this only applies to people who already have massive stacks that warrant that expensive effort. For the average person, the government simply raises the cost and complexity of using Bitcoin until it's impractical, forcing them back into fiat for most transactions. ​The True Game Theory: The uneven playing field doesn't end just because the tool is slower. The state's move is to legislate Bitcoin out of utility for the masses—either through capital gains complexity, KYC/AML enforcement on all major interaction points, or outright banning its use as money. Why go through the expensive process of physical seizure when you can simply make the asset functionally useless within the system? The government doesn't need to win the technical fight for every wallet; it just needs to win the regulatory and enforcement fight at the perimeter to maintain its monopoly on power and money.