Nice, so you actually didn't pull your prediction out of your ass, but used (polynomial) regression on historical data (not sure if it's wise to exclude bubble data/outliers, though). I respect that.
But do you want to know what is the single biggest assumption you make in your analysis, an assumption that some (including me) would consider completely unfounded, and in fact completely unrealistic?
That there is a single underlying growth function that governed the price of btc over the entire course of the data you looked at, and will continue to govern it.
Sure, you're free to make this assumption. But with that assumption removed, your analysis falls apart.
So suddenly there is the call for scientific rigour, when the results do not match your expectations?
Awesome!
Oh and take a hint, the result wouldn't differ much if someone were to use the method you suggested.
You're funny when you try too hard: I didn't suggest any method. I simply formulated the assumption made in sarc's analysis.
And "the result wouldn't differ much"? You're kidding, I hope. Simply (yet unrealistically) assuming that, say, growth was determined by one function up to January 2013, and another one following January 2013, would probably put us into the 500? 5000? (can't be arsed to calculate this now) range right now.
Which is obviously not where we are. Hence: unrealistic assumption as well, as noted above.
