Well there’s still the alternative scenario for an ATH in 2019, mentioned in item #1. But that pattern seems to make less sense to me (and thus less likely) if I only think about the lack of news and the declining spreads model (both of which should be doubted because we’re normally in the doldrums at the bottom and the aforementioned model may be backward looking):
And what’s the news that would ignite that? An ETF approval? It would extend the next ATH after that out to 2025/26. A 2019 high at $30,000 would on (if we presume the declining spread continues) the total market cap chart for all coins (presumably including Bitcoin) look just slightly different than a double-top instead of the extremely higher high as shown for 2013:
Note if that chart above were updated, the cyan colored line would already be slightly below the purple line by now. So the 2013 scenario is still plausible. But in order for the new ATH in 2019 to look like 2013, then Bitcoin would have to rise to $50,000+ and/or altcoins would have to rise much more than they did in 2017. I guess we could attribute a “double-top variant” of 2013 as declining volatility and flattening regression curve fit. So I am not totally ruling out this possibility. If we do bounce to $10k, then there’s a difficult (or maybe not difficult if the nature of the news is known then) decision of whether to sell or whether the ATH is coming in 2019.
However if we ignore the limitation of declining spreads from that regression fit chart above (i.e. if the regression-fit is a backward not forward looking metric which thus only shows egregiously declining spreads because the future data is not available to pull the curvature down), then we can hypothesize an alternative scenario with a higher-high variant of the 2013 pattern:
(click to zoom to the source)
IMPORTANT: note the 1 EWT label on the above chart is clearly placed in the incorrect position, which is quite evident if you review my table below. It should be before June 2010 and at $0.10 which is more evident on Kunal Sen’s chart from my prior post. Also the $100,000 expected peak price is much too high. My alternative scenario always had it at about $32,000 which agrees with both the declining spread model and the declining percentages in my table below.
The accelerating strong dollar-short vortex along with the coming economic cycle turmoil in Europe and Asia, makes me think that the world would move towards the well known safe haven market of the U.S. stocks and the U.S. dollar. Thus risky assets would be out-of-favor. So for me this is the overriding factor that pushes the odds heavily in favor of a Bitcoin bottom in 2020 when both Armstrong’s and Michael Pettis’ models call for a bottoming in China of the adjustment required for Asia to rebalance from an export economy to an integrated Asian Union economy of internally consumed consumption and services. After Asia bottoms, they will be all over cryptocurrency like flies on honey or “Japs on rice” as we used to say in the my hillbilly youth in the 1970s (when all we knew about Japan was Godzilla and Midway). How much the world has changed since then.
However perhaps the overriding factor should be my observation that Bitcoin was the only asset (other than the U.S. and Canadian dollars and stock markets) which broke above their downtrend lines after July 12. This seemed to indicate that Bitcoin is correlated with the strong dollar-short vortex (which is also accelerating) and thus should continue to rise into 2019 and peak before 2020. When I first observed that amazing correlation which only Bitcoin shared with the North American financial safe havens, I thought that the ATH was still coming in 2019. Then someone sent me Kunal Sen’s chart which I cited in my prior post, which caused me to think a 2020 bottom is more likely. However, I’m really undecided between the two possible outcomes. The 2013 pattern repeat was my original thesis since early this year.
Amazing we have two such extreme opposing possibilities at $10k! To $
10032K or $5k? Which is it? It’s a humorous characterization of the fruitful “insanity” of our volatile crypto markets. However at $10k, if you truly believe in a 50% chance of going to $ 10032k, then there’s more upside than downside. Although I’d prefer not to be hodling altcoins on a renewed drop to $5k. Yet on a move to $100k, I think LTC might provide another severe whiplash as it did in 2013 after the mid-year correction.
The 2019 ATH could fit with the possibility of the coming SegWit donations debacle driving the next cryptowinter because it would drive many greater fools into Core addresses that begin with a
3 (which is the default in most wallets these days, instead of the safer Satoshi addresses that begin with a
1) for their slaughter as I documented in my posts which were nuked from
bitcointalk.org. I thought the SegWit donations fork-off for Core might come years later though to give more time for more
n00bs to become involved and be slaughtered. For readers who haven’t read the nuked posts, no I’m not a shill for Bitcoin Cash. The real Bitcoin is Satoshi’s original protocol, which continues to run congruently with Core until the donations begin, although most people don’t realize this.
Let’s redo the chart from the my prior post for this alternative scenario:
The timings above are obtained by noting the length of the cycle has been doubling on every cycle.
Everything seems to align for
$32,000 in 2019. Those thinking
$100,000 might miss the peak.
It will be 10 years later in 2029 before Bitcoin will peak again. Yet the bottom after the coming $32,000 peak will be ~$9000 in 2021. So we’ll likely rise again to new ATHs higher then $32,000 before 2024.
That's probably the closest you'll get to an altcoin reaching 0 until bitcoin itself dies from people noticing a combination of being designed to centralize and non-fungible makes it the ultimate new world order slavery system.
@realr0ach is still jealous because we advised him not to sell BTC for silver at $600. Silver has declined -25% while BTC has increased by an order-of-magnitude. I been telling everyone for the past 2 years in the
bitcointalk.org Martin Armstrong thread to sell gold at $1360 because it could drop below $1050 again because of the “strong dollar-short vortex” that began on the 2015.75 turn date on Armstrong’s ECM model (which was precisely the date to the exact day that Putin entered the Syrian conflict officially instead of by proxy).
Gold has also always been a fiat. So just because Bitcoin is fiat surreptitiously controlled behind the curtain by the-powers-that-be who control mining via their control of money, banking, ASIC factories, and governments, doesn’t make gold superior or even at par to Bitcoin. The game theory of Bitcoin is much superior to gold and Bitcoin is headed to be a new international reserve.
Gold is becoming useless because (it hasn’t always been money in the past and) it’s no longer accepted for commerce by anyone directly, thus you have to rely on a government controlled market maker for any liquidity. How is that going to work as a hedge against government when the government licenses all the dealers and major market makers. You going to trade with a government agent at meet-ups and get thrown into prison. And you can’t do a damn thing with it, not even cross a checkpoint with it.
Clearly both @markj113 and @realr0ach are wearing tinfoil hats. Had a long discussion with those atavistic, anachronistic, antediluvian, archaic retrophiliacs and troglodytes in 2016 about the declining utility of gold.
Although @realr0ach’s detailed claim is correct that Bitcoin is a NWO 666 directed paradigm, he ostensibly fails to fully appreciate that increased order exists to foster (c.f. bottom of linked post) greater disorder (aka entropy). The famously accurate technological prognosticator George Gilder recently explained and reiterated this “fundamental information theory” concept. I explained this in more detail posting under the pseudonymous username “X” on the recent blog of James A. Donald’s (aka “Jim”) blog1 in the context of the advantage of the coming NWO, collapse of Western civilization underway, and why strict patriarchy never exists (or at least not sustainably) on any scale larger than the Dunbar number limited size of a tribe. In those posts as username “X”, I entirely refuted @realr0ach’s favorite vacuous retort that incorrectly posits a coming collapse of technological complexity.
1 Jim (aka James A. Donald) was the first person to respond on the mailing list where Satoshi first announced Bitcoin.