I don't understand why people like plausible good sounding story when Bitcoin data tell us a story much better than anybody in Bitcoin world ever told.

I'm actually saying that Bitcoin is much better than sound money and deflation or inflation are irrelevant to Bitcoin. The network effects trumps everything else.
It is math, guys, not a bunch of words.
The Test: What If Inflation Disappeared Tomorrow?
Booth's model predicts:
Technology still deflates at 5-10%/year
Bitcoin purchasing power grows 5-10%/year
Bitcoin price growth slows to near zero (no inflation to "fight")
Power law model predicts:
Network adoption continues (β_A = 3.05)
Metcalfe effects continue (β_M = 1.84)
Bitcoin continues P(t) ~ t^5.69
Returns still 30-50%/year (network-driven, not inflation-driven)
Historical evidence: Bitcoin grew 100%+/year during LOW inflation (2009-2013) and during HIGH inflation (2021-2022). Growth rate tracks adoption curve (t^5.69), NOT inflation rate.
What Booth Gets Right
To be fair, Booth is right that:
Technology creates abundance (deflationary pressure)
Prices SHOULD fall in sound money
Bitcoin allows this deflation to express itself (unlike fiat)
But he misses:
The MAGNITUDE of Bitcoin's growth is network effects (99%), not deflation (1%)
Bitcoin is ACTIVE (growing network), not PASSIVE (measuring stick)
The mechanism is epidemic spreading + Metcalfe, not just "fixed supply"
How Booth SHOULD Frame It
Current framing:
"Bitcoin is sound money that reveals technological deflation. Everything gets cheaper in BTC terms."
Correct framing:
"Bitcoin is a growing network (t^5.69) whose value increases via adoption dynamics (epidemic spreading) and network effects (Metcalfe). Additionally, being fixed-supply money, it captures technological deflation. The network growth dominates (99.9% of returns), deflation is a small bonus (0.1%)."
Bottom Line
Does Booth explain Bitcoin's growth?
No. He frames it as passive "sound money" revealing deflation
Misses network effects entirely (your β_A × β_M)
Attributes Bitcoin's 1,000,000x growth to technology deflation (maybe 3x at most)
Gets direction right, magnitude catastrophically wrong
The irony:
Booth is right that tech deflation is powerful
But wrong that it explains Bitcoin
Bitcoin's power law growth (t^5.69) DWARFS tech deflation by 1000x
Network effects > technology deflation > monetary inflation
The power law reveals what Booth misses:
Bitcoin isn't growing because things are getting cheaper. Bitcoin is growing because the network is spreading via epidemic dynamics and scaling via Metcalfe's Law. The technological deflation is a TINY bonus on top of massive network-driven growth.
Booth confuses the measuring stick (Bitcoin reveals deflation) with the rocket ship (Bitcoin grows via network effects).