No, I don't think that at all.
Even if you use your TA to give a price range and corresponding probabilities I still think it's no better than random unless you can statistically prove that its not.
I get where you're coming from. "If it works, it should be possible to _show_ that it works." (where "show" means something like "up to current academic publication standards"). Did I get that right?
Let me make a countering case. I suggested the analogy before in some other thread, so apologies for the repetition:
Imgagine you're a computer scientist in the 1970s. You implemented a computer chess algorithm on the fastest then-available machine, nothing more complicated than alpha-beta pruning (or variations of it). You still fail to beat a competent human GM. Consistently.
So, you ask the GM how he plays chess. He'll throw an entire library of opening theory (or endgame theory, or whatever) at you. You read it, and will quickly realize that this completely
unimplementable. Worthless, from your perspective. Yet, still, that GM beats your machine nearly every single time.
End of analogy. In my opinion, TA as she is practiced by the more competent traders in here, is as much of an art as it is a science (thanks to sgbett for that phrasing).
It's difficult (though not impossible) to show that it produces statistically significant results. And even then, what is tested is only a tiny subset of what traders actually use for the TA: the purely algorithmic part, while in reality the algorithmic methods go hand in hand with intuition/human-optimized pattern recognition/etc. (like in the chess analogy above).
It really runs down to the following question, in my opinion: do you
only accept knowledge and results that are produced by the full rigor of academic methodology, or do you allow for "conditional knowledge"... insights that appear reasonable to you, that you have personal annecdotal evidence for, and that you hope can eventually be proven to be correct in a more formal way.
Myself, I follow the latter approach: I believe I have tentative evidence that TA (as I practice it) works well enough, but I don't expect to be able to show beyond a doubt that it does work, because (as you already pointed out) the system underlying it is too complex (and not well enough understood yet) to formalize it to the point where the question can really be answered once and for all. Until then, I will continue using those methods, with tight risk control in place to avoid catastrophic failure should the methods "stop working" for me.
Personally, I wouldn't need to accept anything close to academic rigor to even begin to accept that someone was applying a strategy that was currently working in the Bitcoin market. If someone was able to shoe me statistically that they had an algorithmic trading pattern that' produced results falling in 3 sigma/3 standard deviation range I would be more than happy to think that it's very likely that their strategy was currently producing results. I think generally in academia scientists look for 6 sigma results which is far more rigorous than I would ever need to see.
The thing that gets me the most is that if we took all the people here and on other forums who post about their TA strategies and gave them all a bunch of money to trade on a market that was actually literally just a random walk created by some programmed random function, no one would notice. They would all still use the same language, the same discussions, some people would be big winners and people would look to them for advice. It would be the same "it works till it doesn't".
"TA" can cover such a broad range of approaches that I would never dismiss everything classified as TA out of hand. But it's so vastly unlikely that anyone taking a non-quantitative layman's approach is getting information of value. Unless you know that there are enough market participants acting on the exact same "TA" and using that information to exploit their patterns. But that would never happen in any sufficiently large market.(It might have happened with the Yen in the 1980s or something like that but that's not really relevant)
I'm not saying that people can't get an edge on a market by understanding the underlying causes of what moves the price, and the psychological factors involved. My whole point is that people should focus on those two issues mainly. Your edge is going to come from understanding. And the commonly used TA doesn't do anything but exploit the human predisposition to seek patterns where they are none. Patterns are a mathematical construct that can be analogized and shown to be statistically significant. Having good results doesn't indicate anything really. It's vastly more likely you're just experiencing positive variance. Not to mention the fact that anyone trading with an upward bias in Bitcoin the last couple of years was going to make money in most cases. Focusing your time and effort on other areas would probably be more productive.
You continue in making valid points, but you chose to not address one of my points that was intended to be a direct answer to your concerns. I selected the chess/algorithmic chess example for a reason...
First, we need to distinguish two elements here,
1) statistical evidence that some traders "beat the market" in a way that is unlikely to be the product of pure chance, and
2) determining what is the reason for 1).
I believe 1) can be shown (though your requirement that it needs to be an "algorithmic trading pattern" is not necessary for that - it doesn't matter whatever cognitive process produces the result), and there are enough well known (public) traders outside of btc that provide evidence for 1). I know some economists have tongue in cheek referred to Warren Buffet as a "six sigma event", but that's ultimately just an admission of what a sad field it is they work in: physicists would take such an event as an opportunity to investigate alternative explanations, economists (more precisely: adherents of the EMH) seem to think by labeling something that goes against their predictions an outlier they solve the problem. /rant
Next step, what causes 2), is a lot harder, and your objection is valid of course: just because a trader beats the market significantly and uses TA doesn't prove that TA is the reason for that success. Which brings me back to my chess analogy: The often somewhat fuzzy sounding strategies written over the centuries on chess might seem useless to you, coming from a purely formal position. You will still note that almost all players that are at an extremely high level will use such (non algorithmic) advice in learning and training.
What to conclude? a) their success is due some other factor (and the strategy they learn is a "placebo"), or perhaps b) there is after all some, difficult to measure, effect of those "vague strategies" that gives players (and traders) a competitive edge.
To paraphrase: I think it is entirely plausible that, if implemented purely algorithmically, most TA would produce only barely significant results. That doesn't mean however it cannot work - I find it entirely plausible that TA mainly works by "sharpening" a traders intuition for the effects you mention yourself: market psychology and underlying causes. I would add a few more "fundamental market forces" (momentum, reversion), but in principle this is where we probably agree, if phrased correctly... I don't believe TA is a set of methods that work on its own. It is perhaps a set of tools that help the trader's human mind to read markets better than is usually possible without those tools.
But much like Occam's Razor always suggests: It isn't always wise to use overcomplicated things. 
