Okay, lets say the father of the largest real-estate bubble in america is somehow *right* about bitcoin. Well, when would you expect this to manifest itself? After the first surge to a dollar? The second to 31? The third to 266? The fourth to 1,000+? Do you see a pattern here at all?

When confidence is lost, the opportunity to recover is also lost. Bitcoin hasn't lost that confidence. For that to happen, we would freefall to near zero, and then stay at some mediocre value - say 1 dollar, and taper off to nothingness as everyone just decided to stop participating.

The problem with his grand and sweeping pronouncement is he bases this on the "intrinsic value" theorem, which for old economic fossils, usually means Gold. You can't directly compare bitcoin and gold, although some try. I suppose there is a rudimentary basis for doing so, where the scarcity of gold ore could be held up to the relative scarcity of finding the correct "hash" for a block. But other than that, they are distant cousins to each other.

In any case, I'd just take his predictions he made during his career and apply that probability ratio to what he's said about Bitcoin. If anything, its a contrary indicator.