We're still pretty early into the adoption (and usage), and it's too early to say with certainty if we can use that data unfiltered to estimate the user base (I know, I know, "popular addresses excluded").
It doesn't actually matter.
What my model does is defines two abstract unmeasurable quantities called the "generalized user base,"
N and the "value of bitcoin",
V. I then
define that these two variables satisfy the Metcalfe Model,
V ~
N2.
Everything is exact so far and I haven't made any assumptions. Then I ask: "is this model useful?"
To answer this question, I look for observable proxies for both
N and
V that are measurable. Reasonable proxies for
N include "unique address used per day" and "transactions per day excluding popular addresses," but one could also consider subscribers at r/bitcoin or users at bitcointalk.com. In fact the more
proxies for
N that show self-consistency, the stronger my model becomes. A reasonable proxy for
V is the market cap of bitcoin.
It has already been shown the the model is useful, and that it is in fact reasonable to infer that bitcoin's value grows as the square of its generalized user base. Realizing that I am using the terms "bitcoins value" and "generalized user base" in a technical way, the task moving forward in time is to find ways to estimate
N that simultaneously support the Metcalfe model without stretching the common-sense meanings of the words "value" or "user base." If we have to stretch common-sense too far, then the model will no longer be useful.
This is how we make progress in theoretical physics. A good example is Newton's Second Law:
f =
m a. A lot people think that this is some discovery about a "fundamental law of the universe," but it is actually just a definition. The net force acting on an object is
defined by humans to be equal to the product of the object's mass and acceleration. You could equally create another "law" that says
f2 =
m v, where
v is velocity and f2 is "force 2.0." Both are correct by definition, but only one is useful. If you calculate the "force 2.0" of gravity, you'll get a complex mess; whereas the "force" of gravity is an elegant equation.
Poll
