Scenario 1: nothing happens. Fundamentals don't visibly change. Fresh fiat only trickles in slowly. Miners sell coins to pay for their shiny new ASICs. In that case, we will continue to "deflate", I agree. I would expect we would through several downtrends, broken by the occasional reversal, but in the end we reach the goal you described.
Scenario 2: something happens. I don't know *what* exactly would suffice to count as "something", but that's for the market to determine. Maybe volume picks up. Maybe there are small, but noticeable improvements in the fundamentals, say: bitcoin commerce starts to gain traction for some niche market (maybe, I don't know, computer hardware. maybe porn. doesn't matter).
Now, according to the "unconditional bubble hypothesis", this won't matter one bit, because the price will first have to go back to pre-bubble levels before those positive developments can be priced in. And this is precisely where I disagree with that hypothesis: if enough (and don't ask me what qualifies as "enough") outside factors influence the market sentiment, we will simply continue trading from whatever level the market is at the moment, with maybe one or the other corrective trend as we go along, but not dependent on whether we reached that elusive "pre-bubble level" or not.
So you agree that only some great event (I think we are talking levels of amazon, or maybe steam would be enough accepting BTC) can cancel the bubble effect. I agree with that wholeheartly.
That, my friend, is piss poor style.
I took the time to write a (from my perspective) well-reasoned reply to your post because I thought it deserved that much, and you decide to completely misrepresent what I said, to twist my response as support, when it was very obviously not.
Anyway, I'm done here.
I am sorry, but this is how I understood the Scenario 2. Again, I apologise if you meant something else, and I appreciate well though out response but I do not know how else can I interpret the second scenario.
This is what oda.krell said in Scenario 2, in the midst of a well-formulated response to your OP:
Then you simply replied to the entire post with this:
oda.krell literally used the word "small". You then replied by putting words and ideas about agreement in his post that simply didn't exist. In fact, you used the word "great" which, in this case, is antonymous to "small" (as it usually is) Don't say that you appreciate a well thought-out response when you clearly didn't even read what was wrote.
From an objective party's perspective: At best, it comes off as poor reading comprehension. At worst, it appears as though you are letting your market desires to color your responses blatantly and fabricating words coming out of someone else's mouth to support your emotional speculation.
I did not pick up on the "small" thing, I admit.