Topic: Bitcoin price cycles - page 13. (Read 26865 times)

I don't really see why people hype so much about centralization of mining by a certain group, as long as there is no 51% attack.  You really think that anyone who purchased the equipment for a big mining farm has anything in mind except for maximizing their profit?  If Chinese bitcoins double in price, so do yours!  They are all the same thing.  And if they are just a big pool, well - even less to worry about.

As for the patterns, see my comment here.



  Thanks for that... that comment made my night!

Have thought about it. Apart from casual racism, what's the actual problem with this? We've had (non-Chinese) mining pools approaching 51% before (I can't remember, but I think ghash.io may even have passed the 51% mark?) and miners responded by moving to other pools. This Sinophobia only seems to work if we suspend disbelief and assume that the vast majority of miners are (a) also Chinese, and (b) will put national identity ahead of rational self-interest. (Incidentally, you seem to be conflating "miner" and "pool" - I assume that was just an accident).

PS. Not sold on the idea that "professional manipulators" are a new phenomenon - or even a serious one, though I realise that a lack of belief in the mystical powers of cetacea marks me as an iconoclast on BCT.

Quite the fucking pessimist, aren't you, sir?

Which is why you're here is it?

It's bitcoin, anything can happen in this space.

If you look hard enough, you will see cycles and patterns EVERYWHERE. So many desperate people on the forum are willing to grab straws to hang on to their dreams. Folks, bitcoin will never see 1000 ever again. Most it will get to is 600. The days of rocketing to the moon are long over. Think about it: mining has been centralized to a few Chinese mining factories, market has been taken over by professional manipulators, bitcoin fundamentals have been shown to have too many weaknesses, bitcoin core developers have no leaders and no vision, bitcoin community has never been more disjointed, etc... It's over, folks.

Interesting thread. I'm posting so i can keep an eye on how this develops.

if pre-halving hype, you should not take a long time startup. It would be interesting to be repeated again for the third time cycle.

I should point out that the relative increases are indeed continuing to drop;

Cycle 1 Phase 1 : start: $0.01, max: $1.06 (106x), end: $0.79 (79x)
Cycle 2 Phase 1 : start: $12.06, max: $214.86 (17.8x), end: $127.26 (10.6x)
Cycle 3 Phase 1 : start: $240.26, max: $461.49 (1.9x), end: $405.06 (1.7x)

Also note that in Cycle 2 Phase 1 we went to a new ATH; we did not repeat that this cycle, so exactly how high we go this time is very much up in the air.  However, I do believe a price rise will be incoming (especially with the halving coming up).

So, here are the updated graphs for March 2016:



and the image with what I see as the corresponding sections highlighted:



It clearly looks to me like we have been in D for a few weeks now, which is a period of relative stability and horizontal movement, after the sudden short volatility of C. (Note D is also preceded by a small run-up in each case; this time, it was the jump from about $370 back in February.)  If things continue, we should expect a noticeable rise over the next few months, possibly to new ATHs.

For reference, here are the other graphs:

Thanks for the "nudge"... I've been sidetracked by other things recently, but I was thinking it was time to update.  We have indeed begun the next phase, so I'll update the chart soon to see what it looks like.  It's been pretty quiet in the price range, although not unexpectedly. 

@hacknoid, you have planned to update the graph? We are at the beginning of phase 2. If the scenario is repeated, the exponential phase is imminent.

Interesting, So that the finish of the last period will be on Jan or Feb 2017. However could be interesting see too as will be the impact of the halving on it.

Yes - the graphs are continuous - the next cycle begins immediately after the previous one ends.

It may not be clear since I just realized I cut off the right side of the picture with the legends on it (I'll correct it for next time); the three cycles are:

1) June 2010-Nov 2012
2) Nov 2012-May 2015
3) May 2015-Jan 2016

As far as I know, 2014 is right in the middel of the Nov 2012 - May 2015 graph..

Also, it is a 900 day graph, which would indicate that it covers around 2.5 years, which would indicate that 2014 is covered.

What if we added 2014 in here? Would they match? If not then why? Asking because you took 2010 and 2012 as indicators and then skipped 2 years instead of 1.

Yes, and I am inclined to agree.  Both the peak at point B and the "heartbeat" at C have been less intense than previous cycles, so the next peak could quite likely be less proportionally.  I also think the ongoing blocksize drama will help mute any price rises as well (though not defeat them entirely).

Thanks a lot for a nice update. I haven't visited your thread for a longer while and now it seems the picture is slightly more clear than about a month ago. The next 50 days will be crucial for the whole story, if the original cycle (or scenario A) is to play out. As I wrote in one of the early posts in this thread, I wouldn't necessarily expect a ten fold increase from where we just are ($3500-4000), as the sign of the cycle confirmation. Instead, I would expect the price to peak at around $2k (ten fold increase within the cycle - see one of my posts on the first page).

Well, and there it is, I would say.  The corresponding points are getting more clear, although I would still say A (if it really is a trend) is harder to match.  However, we seem to have clearly just hit point C.  If so, this would indicate upcoming is a rise, followed by another relatively flat period.

I've been giving a lot of thought over the past few weeks about how to explain both variations in the cycles and similarities.  As I mentioned in the initial post, I think it is human nature behind it all, primarily the way that human psyche will forget past events, grow interest over time, and basically follow cycles.  However, it also got me wondering what are the other main factors that may be driving the price?

Clearly the implosion of Mt. Gox and the crackdown by China's government back in 2014 played into the long downtrend in price.  But I think these are just some specific example of general factors that I believe come into play.  Below I'll outline what I can think of in terms of the major factors; there are also numerous smaller factors, but I think large trends are driven by the large factors.

Factor: Interest
Affect: Positive
I think there is a general increase in interest over time.  This is closely tied to amount of public awareness, but I'll classify it in general terms as interest in the technology and/or currency.  I think this is more or less constantly increasing. 

Factor: Adoption Rates
Affect: Positive
This includes both user adoption rates (measurable by the number of online wallets or wallet app downloads) as well as business adoption rates (Coinbase and Bitpay customers) as well as availability of Bitcoin ATMs.

Factor: Price
Affect: Positive or Negative
Large price drops result in more nervous traders, while big price gains results in FOMO. 

Factor: Media coverage
Affect: Positive or Negative
In general I think "there is no such thing as negative exposure", but certainly in terms of whether people want to put their money into something the affect can be either positive or negative.

Factor: Competition/Distraction
Affect: Negative
Previously, especially from mid-2013 through mid-2014, this has included altcoins (notably Litecoin and Dogecoin).  Also includes competing digital payment technologies such as Ripple, Stellar and Venmo as well as digital payment interfaces such as Apple Pay and Samsung Pay.  In 2015 the big "competition" was from Blockchain in general, with the thought that Bitcoin was not required, but rather just use the tech without the coin.

Factor: Controversy
Affect: Negative
Currently this is the scaling debates and all the mudslinging going on over that.  Previously it would include the "51% attack" concerns.

Factor: Government Legislation
Affect: Mostly bad
Sometimes the clarification of rules provided by governments has been positive (such as Germany's tax rules), but in general there has been lots of "banning", either real or perceived, but governments such as China, Russia and Thailand.


I'm currently trying to figure out how to best "measure" these factors, if that can indeed be done.  I'd love to try to plot them all together to see what the net affect might look like, and how that would correlate (or not) to actual prices.