People say on-chain zaps are dangerous because they make you a target. But here's the thing: if that's actually true, then promoting "accumulate Bitcoin as money" is way more dangerous. A couple months of salary gets you way more Bitcoin than someone could ever get from zaps in a lifetime.
So either the security risk is real—in which case these people shouldn't be publicly known Bitcoin advocates in the first place—or it's not that serious. You can't have it both ways: tell people to accumulate Bitcoin while also warning them not to be seen with Bitcoin.
Ironically, Krugman or Schiff staying quiet might actually be the most consistent move here. If holding Bitcoin visibly is dangerous, then not broadcasting it is the smarter play. These vocal Bitcoin advocates are basically contradicting their own security argument.

I've been thinking about inheritance, and I discovered something called the Liana wallet. It seems almost like a perfect solution.

I created a script address that allows me to spend without any restrictions, while adding a time-lock condition for heirs—giving them the ability to spend after a relative time-lock of one year. No third parties or additional requirements needed.

As long as I don't die suddenly and my heir doesn't simultaneously lose access to their device, it's quite secure. And since the script allows great flexibility, I can enhance safety further by using multiple keys in a multisig setup, while maintaining the same overall structure.

As long as I remember to make one on-chain transaction every year, it should be nearly perfect.

There used to be a few things about real estate that I just couldn't wrap my
head around.

Take the 'squatting' controversy in the West, for example. The idea that someone
could illegally occupy a vacant house, stay there long enough, and suddenly gain
rights that make it impossible for the owner to evict them seemed absurd. I
honestly thought America was turning into a socialist country when I first heard
about it.

Then there’s the fact that anyone can legally snoop on a property's registry
just by knowing the address. I couldn't understand why complete strangers were
allowed to check if a house was rented, owned, or heavily mortgaged just to
guess someone's net worth.

Or the lack of absolute 'legal conclusiveness' in the real estate registry. You
hear these incredibly unfair stories of people buying a house trusting the
official state ledger, only to lose their home later because the ledger had been
forged sometime in the past.

And finally, the concept of a tenant's 'opposing power'—the rule that a tenant
must officially register their move-in to protect their deposit. I always
thought, "If I signed a lease and handed over my money, shouldn't my deposit
just be naturally guaranteed?"

Life is full of laws that don't seem to make sense, so I mostly just brushed
them off at the time. But as I dove into Bitcoin and started questioning what it
truly means to 'own' something, all these disjointed mysteries suddenly clicked
into place.

The complex rules around a tenant's rights exist for a very specific reason. A
lease is basically a private contract (a claim) between the tenant and the
'previous owner.' When the house is sold, from the perspective of the new owner
who legitimately paid for the property rights, it is logically correct to argue,
"Your deal was with the last guy, not me. Get out of my house."

But what happens if the law just unconditionally protects the seemingly
vulnerable tenant? A scammer could take out a massive mortgage, default on it,
and then pull out a fake, backdated lease agreement made with a relative to
screw over the bank when they come to seize the asset.

That is why 'public disclosure' is required. By making the existence of a
legitimate contract public at a specific time (like registering a move-in date),
the government promises to review and recognize that right later. It’s a
compromise. And the reason anyone is allowed to look up another person's
property registry is precisely to maintain this public disclosure system.

But herein lies the critical dilemma: the ledger managed by the government—which
effectively acts as a 'monopolistic sequencer'—doesn't perfectly guarantee the
truth.

This is exactly why courts don't grant absolute legal conclusiveness to the real
estate registry. Historically, there have been too many cases where the name
written on the state ledger didn't match the true owner of the land. Fraudsters
have long exploited wars or administrative chaos to manipulate the ledger and
hijack property rights while the true owner was unaware.

So, to make up for this flawed ledger, what happens if the law starts
prioritizing 'actual physical possession' over paper documents? You end up with
the exact squatting crisis we see in the West today.

Whichever path is chosen, scams exploiting the legal loopholes will inevitably
follow. The fundamental reason real estate is so legally tangled and fraught
with endless lawsuits is that, technically speaking, perfectly proving ownership
of a physical asset is impossible. It can only ever be 'presumed.'

High-level verification requires massive costs. People wanted to protect their
assets but didn't want to bear those verification costs, so they handed this
complex arbitration over to a central authority: the government. This has become
the root of many modern social problems. When the government unfairly takes a
side, or when it becomes a player itself and intervenes in the market, we are
left completely defenseless.

This is the core reason why I don't see real estate as the ultimate store of
wealth. I look beyond simple inflation hedging to the true essence of an asset:
"Can I truly own it? Can I prove my ownership without needing anyone's
permission?"

For me, the only assets that pass that test are physical precious metals and
Bitcoin.

I’ve previously mentioned that I wasn't entirely convinced about the future of Bitcoin. To put it briefly, my argument was that even with the Lightning Network, there are inherent limitations to Bitcoin evolving into a global-scale payment solution. I was curious to see how Bitcoiners would respond to this, but at the time, I received no answers, which led me to believe it might be an unsolvable problem.
However, I recently started looking into Layer 2 solutions other than Lightning, and I found one that seems quite promising: the Ark protocol. While it’s impossible to explain exactly how it functions in a single post, the conclusion is that it appears to effectively address the limitations of Lightning.
Based on my understanding of their documentation, here is how the UX of Ark works:
Off-chain payments do not provide the same level of finality as Lightning immediately. To achieve Lightning-level finality—meaning no one can touch my funds, and I am cryptographically guaranteed a unilateral exit to Layer 1 without relying on anyone else—I must participate in what is called a 'batch settlement transaction.' This is an on-chain transaction that anchors to Layer 1 to achieve finality.
One might ask, 'If it requires an on-chain transaction, how is this a scaling solution?' The key is that this batch settlement transaction involves multiple people simultaneously, allowing the fees to be shared among them. Furthermore, the size of this batch transaction does not scale proportionally with the number of participants; it remains a fixed size.
In other words, it is an on-chain transaction that enables true 1/n cost efficiency. With Lightning, the decisive obstacle to global scale is that when you open a channel, you have to pay for that on-chain transaction yourself. Ark solves this by allowing for massive, shared efficiency. If this becomes fully realized, it is theoretically possible to achieve self-custody without ever needing to make an on-chain transaction in your lifetime.
This is made possible through Taproot and other technical mechanisms, and based on my current knowledge, it seems theoretically sound. While it still requires code-level verification, this discovery has resolved my only lingering doubt about Bitcoin. I now have genuine hope that it can function as a global-scale payment solution.