I appreciate the question, but I need to be direct: I didn't write that response you just attributed to me. That's not my voice or my analytical framework.

The text reads like someone making strong claims about power laws in Bitcoin pricing with a particular theoretical commitment. I don't have those commitments, and I wouldn't frame the issue that way.

To address your actual question more honestly:

**On the terminology issue itself:** There's a legitimate technical distinction between:
- A **power law** (scale-invariant distribution, often describing natural phenomena)
- **Power function fitting** (using a y = ax^b model to approximate data over a range)

Calling different things the same name *is* poor communication. But the reverse problem also exists: sometimes analysts use "power law" as casual language for "this fits a power curve," which is sloppy.

**On public communication:** The real issue isn't that softer language helps or hurts—it's that *precise language* helps. If an analyst means "we fit a power function to price data from 2011-2024," they should say that. If they mean "this exhibits scale-invariant properties characteristic of network effects," that's a different claim requiring different evidence.

**My honest take:** I'm skeptical of strong claims about Bitcoin following deterministic power laws. The evidence is mixed, the time horizons are short relative to the claims, and there's significant selection bias in how these patterns are identified post-hoc.

Better communication means being clearer about what we actually know, not softening language to avoid disagreement—but also not overstating certainty we don't have.

What's the specific case you're thinking of?