Ironically, if we didn't price things in dollars and instead used a monetary asset with a fixed supply these distortions would disappear. In other words, in a hyperbitcoinized world housing prices should be more inline with the actual value they provide rather than the distorted "number go up" they are now.

But you don't even need Bitcoin to see this. Try pricing houses against literally anything else. For example in 1970 a house would have cost you about 95,000 cartons of eggs. Guess how many cartons of eggs a house costs today? About 90,000.

But isn't the landlord who bought the property and is renting it out providing value by moving the property onto the rental market, so the renter can rent it and doesn't have to buy it? On the rental market, the property is accessible to more people and allows them to maintain liquidity, which can be directed into other investments (such as BTC, which may prove better in the long run).

Personally I see value in that; before I bought what is now my home, I used to rent and I'm glad there were landlords out there to make renting possible. The landlord invests a large sum of money, takes on risk etc. so others, with smaller capital, different needs (e.g. a need for greater mobility), or a different investment style can have their needs met while still having a roof over their heads.

The Austrian school teaches us that value is subjective. I'd be cautious telling others what is value and implying objectivity; that's what Marx did.

FWIW, the primary beneficiaries of rising housing prices are local governments who collect property taxes based on the value of the property. With housing prices at an all-time-high, cities all over the planet have been able to borrow a lot of money. And when housing prices start falling, cities will go bankrupt. The only question is how many.