Anything can change.

Even the orbit of the Earth is not guaranteed with absolute certainty. We know it will remain stable for millions of years, yet the long-term dynamics of the solar system are so complex that tiny measurement errors can amplify over enormous timescales. Given enough time, the Earth could theoretically drift out of the solar system.
But within a reasonable level of confidence, we consider the orbit stable — and we build our entire civilization on that assumption.

Buying Bitcoin would be pointless if we expected the Earth to be flung into interstellar darkness within a few years.
Rational behavior depends on working with the best predictive framework available, acknowledging both certainty and uncertainty.

For Bitcoin, the power law is that framework. It is our best scientific hypothesis about its long-term evolution.
Scale-invariant phenomena are among the most stable and robust patterns known in nature. In self-organizing systems like Bitcoin, feedback loops tend to restore equilibrium and reinforce the very conditions under which scale invariance emerges. This is why the power-law signature is not fragile — it is a reflection of the system’s internal structure.

In physics we rely on these principles constantly. Scale invariance is one of the most powerful tools we have for understanding reality.
Nature follows scaling laws. Human systems follow them. Cities, infrastructure networks, communication networks, even the statistical patterns of wars follow them.

You don't challenge scale-invariant arguments with superficial objections — especially when those objections have already been addressed by well-understood properties of scaling itself.

All the arguments Luke offers fall into this category.
I’ve explained repeatedly why they fail:
– Bitcoin adoption behaves like other networks
– market capture in network systems is a nonlinear process
– adoption and market cap do not scale linearly
– scaling laws describe the ensemble behavior of a complex system, not anecdotal deviations
There is nothing in Luke’s pseudo-arguments that comes close to challenging a well-established, deeply grounded scaling framework.

Of course, any scientific hypothesis can be invalidated.
But the only way to test the power-law hypothesis is empirically, through data and the evolution of the system — not through opinion, not through personal intuition, and certainly not through misunderstandings of basic scaling behavior.

In the end, reality will choose the correct hypothesis.
We will see it clearly in how Bitcoin evolves.