By saying "aren't allowed", are you saying that I will use force on people who are mistaken? Because I've made no such claims. People are allowed and are often mistaken. They also pay for the consequences of their mistakes all the time.
You said the subjective theory of value is wrong because people are sometimes mistaken about value. People might well be mistaken about gold being valuable too, yet it doesn't mean that gold has no value now. For your theory to work correctly, we should assume that some things are inherently valuable in themselves, regardless of whether people value them or not. This claim does not stand up to criticism since, in order to prove its validity, we need the absence and presence of valuing human beings at the same time, which is an absurdity.
It may be true that gold is scarce. It may be true that gold has high stock-to-flow ratio. It may be true that it's hard to destroy. These are not the attributes that makes gold value. Gold is valuable due to its affect on the valuer, specifically, Man. Now, those attributes may make gold expensive (i.e., cause it to have a high price), but price and value are two different things.
Again, the same reasoning can easily be applied to bitcoin but you, for some reason, refuse to recognize that.
Let me give you an example. Water has a specific affect on Man. It is needed for survival. Now, you may think that water is of higher value to a Man who has been walking in the desert without water for several days vs. a Man living in NYC. I disagree. The need of Man for water is the same. What is different is the price. It's a lot easier to get water in NYC than it is to get water in the desert; hence a Man in the desert is willing to pay more for water than a Man in NYC.
I already gave you an answer to that here:
Things without which humans can't live are, by definition, objectively valuable. But they remain objectively valuable as long as in abundance. Once these objectively valuable things become scarce, humans start to value them subjectively, basing their reasoning on current circumstances. For example, water in the desert is valued more than that in places near rivers with fresh water. The objective value of water always remains the same - it helps you quench your thirst - but the subjective value fluctuates considerably.
The price of water depends on many factors, but the main factor that commands the price is the scarcity or abundance of the thing in question. Water in NYC is more abundant than that in the desert, hence the difference in price. If it had been otherwise - water had been distributed equally among all places, and everyone had unlimited access to it - the price of it would depend on other factors.