No its not Demand-pull either, read what I am describing and stop trying to put it into a per-existing box in which it doesn't fit, BTC has a market dynamic which is unlike any normal good on the market. In BTC you have the unique combination of supply in-elasticity and zero cost storage. In a real commodity reduced production costs causes supply to increase and producers all sell into the market place which causes prices to fall. In BTC the miner knows that supply can not increase, only his share of production can decline, combined with the deflationary nature of BTC and their effortlessness to store leads to hoarding before product even reaches the marketplace. Outside of perhaps a few rare instances in history (maybe Dutch Tulips or livestock in which the product is also the input for future production) this can't happen in a normal market because producers must sell continually, and even in the Tulip scenarios the supply is ultimately perishable and can grow to huge amounts and then come in and glut the market.
Your point about orders of magnitude seems to imply you think that I think exchange rates are going to reach $3 again like at the bottom after 2011. This is absurd, everyone who believes we are seeing a repeat of 2011 is predicting a bottom of $30-$50 so that the ratio of drop from the peak is roughly the same aka 1/10th. Also I don't see how anyone could be advocating buy and hold at this point, buy and hold (and sell at the peak) is long past as a strategy, were in a long term bear market now and the optimum strategy would be to short this market. The difficulty is predicting when and at what point the market bottoms at and finding a counter party as shorting of BTC is a very shallow market. Obviously once the bottom is reached you can switch to a buy and hold strategy but that bottom may not be for months, at the very least it wont reach bottom until hash rates peak and decline.
Your argument in the first paragraph makes some sense to me, but it falls apart at the two points I highlighted.
(1) I don't know where you get that idea from that you can simply take the peak to bottom ratio from the last cycle and apply it to the latest one. (a) the market is different now, both in numbers and composition. For all we know, the bottom could even be lower. (b) what happened to look like a 1/10 ratio, maybe in reality wasn't a simple ratio, but the result of a different formula, say, log_3(30), which, when applied to the latest peak would give an entirely different value... that example formula itself is bullshit of course, but for all the times I have seen this argument ("deflation isn't over until we reach 25-30"), I have yet to see any motivation for it other than "last time it was 1/10".
(2) Hash rate never substantially declined. In 2011, it peaked in August, then gently sloped downwards til November/December. Which nicely conincided with the price recovery after the 2011 peak. Which is probably why some people think we haven't seen the bottom until hash rate peaks again.
Problem with that argument is the same as above: it's not the same situation (for better or worse). (a) run up to the 2011 peak was much faster than in 2013, (b) hash rate increase in 2011, pre-peak, was also much sharper -- the 2011 pre-preak increase shows signs of double-exponential growth, 2013 was plain exponential, (c) situations are difficult to compare since ASIC mining lead to a drastically longer time span between investment and deployment.
That last point could mean we're seeing a super-stretched deflation, and won't see the bottom for another 6 months or so (guess that's would be your idea). Or, because of that delay, the effect is stretched too thin to actually influence what the bottom will be, i.e. it could have a mild price dampening effect, but not strong enough to counter other salient effects on the price.