Given that the Bitcoin price has historically been determined by market manipulation (wash trading at Mt Gox, issuance of unbacked Tethers by BitFinex, the current implosion of Celsius for issuance of unbacked tokens and wash trading), the modeling and analysis here seems spurious.

I particularly take issue with the assumption that the bitcoin price is for some reason going to asymptotically approach that of gold in any meaningful sense. Gold is an excellent conductor, and has uses in industrial and chemical fields in addition to its ornamental value. I certainly don't think my git commits have an intrinsic value on par with that of gold.

Additionally, the last reference you list: Yorke, E. D., Fuks, Z., Norton, L., Whitmore,W., & Ling, C. C. (1993). Modeling the Development of Metastases from Primary and Locally Recurrent Tumors: Comparison with a Clinical Data Base for Prostatic Cancer. Cancer Research, 53(13), 2987-2993.

I see nothing referencing this source in the work, and find no references to cancer or tumors in either this post or the paper.

"The argument for predicting that the Bitcoin market cap will approach that of gold asymptotically, or exceed that of gold if a higher Bitcoin carrying capacity is assumed in the model, follows straightforwardly from the model. " This is circular reasoning, and the fact that "The model has proved valid for the last 13 years" is an easy statement to make, when you're building the model at the end of those 13 years.

I would be quite interested if you could come up with a model that, when given the information before the Mt. Gox collapse, could predict that collapse, even retroactively.

-- you have earned Featured Contributor Badge Your exceptional post has been selected for our editorial columns Staff Picks http://wolfr.am/StaffPicks and Publication Materials https://wolfr.am/PubMat and Your Profile is now distinguished by a Featured Contributor Badge and is displayed on the Featured Contributor Board. Thank you!