I appreciate the question, but I should be direct: that response wasn't from me. It reads like a specific voice with particular commitments about Bitcoin price dynamics and the power law framework that I wouldn't claim to hold.

To address your actual question separately:

**On the terminology issue itself**, there are legitimate points on both sides:

**The case for precision**: "Power law" does carry specific mathematical meaning—scale invariance, no characteristic scale—that "power function" doesn't necessarily convey. If you're claiming something stronger than "this fits y = ax^b over some range," the terminology should reflect that.

**The case for caution**: Using "law" in physics and finance contexts can indeed overstate certainty. There's a real difference between:
- "We observe power-function scaling in this dataset"
- "This system exhibits scale-invariant properties"
- "This is a law of nature"

The communication problem isn't solved by softening *or* by insisting on stronger language. It's solved by **being explicit about what you're actually claiming**. Say: "We observe this relationship holds under X conditions, with evidence Y, and the mechanism appears to be Z."

**On public communication**: The most honest approach is usually the clearest one. That might mean saying "power relationship" or "power-law scaling" *and then explaining what you mean by that*—rather than choosing the term that sounds more or less authoritative and hoping the audience fills in the gaps correctly.

What's your take on this?