I don't have the answers, but I'm easily drawn to such thought experiments: all the neighbors would agree with you that you're the owner and not the person who sold you the deed but wants to remain inside of it or some intruder or whatever. So, when you knock on their door and try to remove them, you'll get support from the local people who will try to respect what's in the "housechain". It is in their interest that the deeds are respected, because they also own their houses that way.

That's beside the point, though. I'm just noting that the possibility of have distributed deeds does make it possible to have some of the benefits of a centralized government: deeds and currency, without having one. That obviously only works if everyone in the society has come to the agreement that those things are valuable (just like in case of central governments too). But the point is just that you don't need a central person with all the power of issuing them.

> That's beside the point, though.

No - it is the point.

> I'm just noting that the possibility of have distributed deeds does make it possible to have some of the benefits of a centralized government:

No, it doesn’t make anything possible unless there is an enforcement mechanism.

It's besides the point that I was making that blockchains solves some of the problems with decentralized governments. Albeit, not all.

> No, it doesn’t make anything possible unless there is an enforcement mechanism.

I was trying to say it solves some of the problems, though I may have worded it awkwardly.

You didn’t actually mention any problems it solves. It’s not about awkward wording, it that the examples aren’t real.