In reply to myself, what are the problems with the Gold cost analogy?

A. Cost can be manufactured arbitarily without any value attached to the final product.

Imagine yourself carrying a rock from point A to point B in a car. There is capital expenditure in the car, maintanance costs in the fuel and lobor costs in your involvement.

Would all that make the rock have a price or go up in price?

So the value attributed to Bitcoin is different from the cost argument. If that value attribution is made then the cost could be a metric to set a price. However there is no intrinsic reason for that value attribution.

Moreover, the same argument can be made for gold.

B. Gold and Bitcoin might not be similar.

Interestingly for Bitcoin holders, there are similarities more apparent than the holders of Gold. I think the first point is strong and this contention point is weak. Yet - Gold and Bitcoin correlation has been very weak historically.

C. All the calculations are absurd because production costs for each site is not known.

This makes sense to argue on a country or site specific costs but does not weaken the overall argument. It qualifies the argument to be more refined which indeed is necessary.

..

And obviously there could be other counter-arguments as well. Yet I believe the analogy is interesting without trying to be explanatory in a wholistic sense.