Property is a human construct..... it belongs in the social-layer, and the underlying asset is in the physical realm. A house can be taken from you by force whether or not you have the private key to it on a blockchain.

Force is the only way to prove ownership over physical objects. Whether that force is your own guns or your government's soldiers guarding your borders.

So, sense we essentially need a government in order for "ownership" to be enforced, we trust their centralized authority to manage who owns what. In other words, they control the grand ledger of property deeds.

Why would we want to use a blockchain to keep track of who "owns" something in the physical world, when that "ownership" requires a government to enforce your right to "own" it?

I said all that because I really want to strongly establish the idea that property ownership is a centralized endeavor by necessity! Once you understand this fact, you realize that a centralized database is far superior for such a thing! The government would use an SQL database that they control because they're the ones enforcing the ownership anyway.

Blockchain is an incredibly inefficient database that comes with one very powerful property: no one holds the login credentials to it. Anyone can read/write to the database for entries which they have the private key to. But for a system that doesn't require extreme decentralization, ANY other database is far superior to blockchain.

So, no. Using blockchain to store property deeds is an incredibly stupid idea. I don't think it will ever happen for the reasons I've described here. But I didn't come to this realization over night. At first, it sounded like a really good idea. But it's not. The only use case for blockchain so far is: Bitcoin. Shitcoin "utility" is a scam.