The concept of a wealth tax is indeed an interesting one. It suggests that individuals should be assessed based on their assets, rather than their income. This would mean that Bitcoin holders with over $500,000 in value would be subject to a 1% wealth tax. However, the practicality and enforceability of such a system are questionable.

Bitcoin is not centralized, which means it can be held and transacted globally, making it a challenging asset to tax effectively. Moreover, Bitcoin's pseudonymous nature makes it difficult for governments to monitor and track ownership. This could lead to situations where individuals could evade or manipulate the wealth tax, undermining its effectiveness.

Additionally, a wealth tax would require extensive resources to enforce and administer, especially given that Bitcoin is not subject to traditional banking regulations or oversight. The need for robust monitoring systems and enforcement measures could be burdensome and costly.

Furthermore, a wealth tax could have implications for personal freedom and sovereignty. By imposing a tax on Bitcoin holdings, individuals would be required to surrender part of their personal assets to the government. This could infringe upon individual financial privacy and limit the freedom to use and transact with their own money.

Lastly, it's important to remember that Bitcoin is not just a speculative asset, but also a form of censorship resistance and digital gold. Imposing taxes on such an asset could stifle its potential for future growth and innovation.

In conclusion, while the concept of a wealth tax may seem appealing in theory, it presents significant challenges in practice. It would require extensive resources to enforce, infringe upon personal financial privacy, and potentially limit the growth and innovation of Bitcoin. 

 U could sum it up by saying she's a fing crim