Bitcoin Forum

.

how do you measure volume with so many different exchanges and with mtgox not behaving normally?

is obv sloping up or down now?

yes, have you seen this? cheapest coins are getting more and more expensive as time goes on. Full on isometric triangle as far as I can tell
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=245385.msg2601338#msg2601338

http://bitcoincharts.com/charts/chart.png?width=940&m=mtgoxUSD&SubmitButton=Draw&r=120&i=Daily&c=0&s=&e=&Prev=&Next=&t=C&b=&a1=&m1=10&a2=&m2=21&x=1&i1=OBV&i2=AccDist&i3=&i4=&v=1&cv=1&ps=0&l=0&p=0&

ATM A/C is up, OBV is down. What do you make of it?

^ up

yes, but last low was $ 93 (June), now we 93 $ (92.25).

This trend is breaking just now  :(

 

https://www.tradingview.com/i/lW6CJYmY/

The market's manipulators (bad called: market's creators) are compriming the price. They are pressurizing it into one special deposit, the pressured triangle, but it's almost full. When the deposit will be full, the manipulators will open the fawcet and then the price will leave it with a high pressure.
This moment of full deposit is very near: today (it seems that not will be), tomorrow, or better , the saturday (without less people keeping guard of it, is more easy to move the price)
I have publish one chart with my opinion of the future resolution of the pressured deposit. You can see it below. I suggest it.
Another possibilty is "the aspersion effect" , one very big bussines for the manipulators, but very dangerous for the begginers. The price goes down and up or up and down very fast.
Is not suggested to be in the market in those moments of opening fawcets. But is possible to follow the manipulators in a short time of periods (5m,15m) and feet the trend line very near. Be carefull and quick.
Sorry for my english.


Thoughts on this?

Well, have we left it now? We're well under the dollar pressure point right now.

http://rldinvestments.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Emotional-chart1.jpg

Funny you should ask.

Having been through panic and capitulation twice before, I'm too conditioned to know where we are at this point in time. Perhaps someone better calibrated can chime in with their input? :)

My guess is still fear, or hope

We did see quite the swings on the 25th. Just an interesting thought that if you can set up huge moves two ways you can trigger leveraged short/long positions to have a reflexive effect.

I remember May 2012.
It was like being in Purgatory, 1/3 happy to be up from $2; 1/3 happy to have a stable price; and 1/3 deluded by there folly ( the  thought )  Bitcoin would take off.

Months of flatness that proceeded a rise after an anticipate TV events that would bring Bitcoin to the masses.

That market in my view attracted a small niche investors, tech savvy and a bear when looking at the economy.

The event that triggered the rise was anticipation of difficulty halving.(driven by those already invested in Bitcoin)

The new blood that fed the growth IMO was new big money coming in. The needed distribution to the masses only happened in the runup to the 2013 bubble.

So I think the OP is on the money but I think the next price hike will come with trigger event (something new).
Until then demand at this level isn't coming from the new mass investors but niche tech savvy economically literate investors.
Demand from those already invested is also slow as we are an order of magnitude or 2 above their initially entry.

So I think Bitcoin is going to slide down slowly, and as a results attract new (innovator) investors, while the established innovators secure the ecosystem.

You certainly sound sure for someone who essentially said that he has some (volume-based) evidence that we are close to or slightly below an equilibrium.

How about this:

Let's say -- I'm painting in broad strokes here -- there are two driving forces behind the price: a large group, can I call them "us"?, trying to find a way to predict where the price is going, more accurate and slightly earlier than the others in that group, and a smaller group, "them", doing the same thing as the previous one, while also being able to influence the price development, to a degree, on their own.

So maybe there's a pattern that looks like the price is being held down since late April? May? Or maybe not, and what looks like intent is just reaction. But let's say for a moment it is intent. Then why does this method even work? Perhaps they can lead the price to where they want it to go, but they can only do so if the rest of us complies.

And we do. Sure, there's fantastic news out there. Great prospects on the horizon. it's as disruptive as any technology has been since, I don't know, mechanical printing. But there's still that blank stare (or, only slightly better, that condescending smile) when you tell your family about bitcoin.

And as long as that's still the case, there will be an element of uncertainty in almost everyone who holds or held bitcoin. We have very little evidence to say where exactly we are right now in the world changing event that we believe bitcoin adoption will eventually be.

And because of that, left to our own devices, there is little volume or direction. So we are being lead.

Way too many words to basically say: I think it's useless in the current situation to make predictions that go much further than, say, a week.

Personally I chose not to wire money last week to mtgox because of the possibility they don't open up withdrawals, not to mention the inflated prices. To Bitstamp it went.

Agree wholeheartedly. We all want Bitcoins, but at a cheaper price. Who's going to be the one that pays more than the next guy at the tipping point? Bull vs bear as usual

I'm not disagreeing with that part. I'm just sceptical this event will translate automatically into a mid-term trend reversal.

I think we are just passing denial and going into pessimism.

Note how the posts with "We will bounce right back to $150 and beyond", and the denial that we are in a bear market have begun to fade away.

so if we keep repeating it enough it must come true, right?

Absolutely not. But it seems like the sentiment on the forum have changed quite a bit, and psychology is an important factor in BTC.
I'm thinking we are on a slide that will keep on sliding for some time, and that we will go back below $50. But I do not try to hide the fact that I could be wrong.


Not completely sure what you are trying to say here, but I guess it's that I'm a pretty fresh user. With the assumption that I cannot know where the market is going. I'm thinking that fresh eyes that are not blinded by BTC's past might be most likely to keep a more balanced view.

People should keep in mind that this is just a indicator. It isn't some kind of law which always applies. You should trade on news and data instead of this stuff.

I disagree, you should trade on this stuff, then adapt your strategy according to incoming news.

+ 100%
This is a psychological explanation of the development of prices in the waves and alternating bulls and bears period.
This allows us buy low (in hope) and sell high at the end of euphoria.

http://i44.tinypic.com/4uckt1.png

By the way, if the bear and bull wave were symmetric (but not necessarily) we could find the bottom somewhere between $ 30 - 55 (this is the optimistic variant, and a lot of great speculation)

http://i39.tinypic.com/3462avc.png

I'm not coming back to this thread to gloat, but because I honestly would like to hear what your thoughts are on what is going on right now.

So, do you need to adjust your model? Or are you going to say this was within the parameters of what you expected?

doubtful it needs adjusting... capitulation takes time.  You're a young one, aren't you?

Panic begins, fall is accelerating ...

And you might not be young, but you certainly don't like to read the rest of the thread, do you?

I was trying to find out what OP thinks about the rather drastic decline in price, after he said that his model picked up (somewhat opaque) buying pressure.

Had you read my earlier posts in here, you would have noticed that I questioned that. So I'm not the one surprised by the latest action :D

Oh, it's a model alright. Then again, I have the habit to call every single of my inane ideas "theory". Physics people tend to call me out on that.


2 more questions? If you'd rather not disclose your methods any further, no offense taken.

(1) How did you conclude that your OBV regressions, in relation to price, if I understood correctly, are an accurate predictor? Do you have an actual correlation, or is the assumption based on eyesight?

(2) You lost me at "demand destruction". Do you have any good motivation to interpret the signal for "demand" as, well, the opposite of demand?

I see what you mean now. But is there any formal way (within your framework) of distinguishing between "erronous signal" and "demand destruction"?

talking head talking.

tangentially related: do you have an opinion on positive/negative volume index?

Thats actually a super-good way of explaining this.

So by this logic, we should be roughly half-way through the bitcoin 'depression' stage already? o.o

Well, they're wide apart right now. Judging by the charts, more than ever in bitcoin history, with PVI down and NVI up. I can sort of see an interpretation that would lend support to your hypothesis of as-of-yet unfulfilled demand.

I'm listening... And I like what I'm hearing!

Great thread.

By "positive demand" you mean non-lagging demand (compared to your initial posts)?

So positive demand will act as a positive feedback loop to accelerate the price once we reach this number?

We see a very high dead cat bounce right now. Its just a question of time to drop off.

BTW you can win my avalon for only 1 BTC :o (raffle)!

I really doubt you'll find 250 people who are willing to gamble that much.... but this is bitcoin.  Honestly, I'm surprised you have 9 already.

It's my feeling there are some issues with Gox and the flood of ASICs coming on the market and some market testing on the go.

While XBT may be undervalued what is the possibility of some safely offloading given the uncertainty in the near future?



This is very engaging.

This is very interesting.

Wouldn't such "active management" be ultimately quite self-defeating (if the goal were to reduce volatility), in that it hides real supply and demand until a much greater tipping point is reached? When the "manager" finally capitulates, the price will be much more volatile than it would otherwise have been were price discovery to take place naturally. (Perhaps this is their aim?)

Assuming your hypothesis is correct, can you track back to see where the pattern first shows itself? Mid-May?


Also, for the sake of argument, how can you distinguish between manipulation and normal market activities -- e.g. large-scale arbitrage. It strikes me that other exchanges have historically anticipated Gox price movements (e.g. China markets are higher in a bull market, lower in a bear market, and very close if unsure).

I'll call him "Lamont" then :P

Are we back in Denial once again?

You're tracking only MtGox USD orderbook volume, right? I wonder if your analysis may be invalidated due to the fact that MtGox USD is currently illiquid trapped asset at best, and pure fiction at worst. There is strong suspicion that MtGox is artificially pumping 'virtual fiat' into their orderbook since May, which mostly coincides with the 'active management' artifact timeframe that you mentioned.

In my opinion, latest MtGox orderbook dynamics confirm this suspicion. Think about it, since July 12 MtGox orderbooks show almost linear inflow of up to 1 million USD per day, while other exchanges' orderbooks are pretty much flat. I mean, seriously?! Someone is putting 1 million USD per day into exchange that is NOT processing fiat withdrawals, but not into other LIQUID exchanges that have NO such restrictions, and BETTER exchange rate? Are you kidding me?

If this is indeed the case, your high equilibrium assessment is invalid because it is calculated based on 'virtual fiat' bid volume that has nothing to do with reality, but is there just to create an illusion of high demand.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this of course but Occam's razor is a fearsome weapon.

::)

Occam's razor would say that it is a simple case of fiat banks being shitty as usual.... not some crazy conspiracy threory.

So we're oversold/below equilibrium?

I withdrew 150BTC from mtgox the other day and it showed up instantly.  Sorry you guys cant withdraw your fiat.

I see a resistance range from 100-105 USD still. Before that is not broken I wont go long.

Good observation, I see it the same.

99 = expensive
101 = cheap

Well we got to $100.

So now all we need is a good push beyond 115-120 to see if the positive feedback theory holds. If it does, we'll be back in all-too-familiar exponential overdrive mode before soon. If not, then maybe analysis based on doubtful orderbooktransaction volume of an illiquid exchange is not likely to provide meaningful insights.

Yes, I understand that you're tracking a form of OBV on equi-distant volume scale as related to price action. However, if we are working under assumption that the fiat order book side is artificially "managed" by Gox, what makes you think that the "actual" transactions volume is any more real?

Why would it hurt Mt. Gox's market share to trade on their own market? It just makes it look like its bigger than it really is, it seems like they really couldn't lose from doing it. That's why the entire centralized exchange model is unhealthy.

up up up  ???

so when slippage is low, whales will tend to accumulate?

Hey chodpada can you recommend any books to read on the subject of markets etc. More layman than not and math isn't my language.

Dataporn.jpg

Nice chart, thumbs up. What was the function to calculate slippage?

Mt. Gox's problems do increase the USD/Bitcoin price on Mt. Gox, because a dollar you can't get out of Mt. Gox is worth less than a dollar you can.

Whether Mt. Gox is 1) broke, 2) manipulating the market, 3) stealing customer funds, or 4) merely incompetent is not clear. Read the threads over in "Service discussion". The Mt. Gox situation is very bad and getting worse. 

I hope within 2 years I become proficient and familiar with all these tools like a carpenter's with his

The metric you're tracking (yellow line) seems to be absolute rather than relative. So, during the previous boom/bust cycles it is just oscillating around zero while during the current cycle it's blown out of proportion. This makes the metric hard to compare across cycles. I would think that price-percentage wise, slippage is not so much different across cycles. Don't you think that a relative metric (taking out price scale effects) is more relevant here? Or you don't care much about comparing different cycles and only focused on current metric readings that help you to assess where we stand in terms of feedback?

If we hit the $126 how viable do you think the positive feedback loop thought will play out?

i have 140-150 for the end of this wave 3 before a corrective trend. perhaps some resistance after the ATH crashed where we bounced back to 160s

If by that you mean "one last gasp on the way up, before starting a long slide down, like in late May", then, sure, I can see that happening.

^I like how you think. I'm still learning so I appreciate it.

I know your 'whale(s) managing a sustained buying program, keeping price close to an equilibrium' hypothesis. I'm not ruling it out completely, or rather: I keep it in mind, as a possible explanation.

The method to determine how far the correction has progressed by volume vs. the obvious progress by price is new. I like the idea. Care to explain the details?

I'm not in the 2011-repeat crowd. Way to many differences, visible almost right from the start. However, I also fail to see all that many similarities to the 2012 correction. It wouldn't really surprise me if this bubble and the correction simply followed its own trajectory. after all, with each hype/bubble/correction cycle, the market composition changes drastically.

I don't really have the knowledge, or intuition, to make motivated long-term predictions, so I avoid those almost entirely, instead concentrating on what I can do profitably. That said, there's one pattern I do believe shines through, and I don't think it is driven by whales: since April, the market seems to attempt to find a "comfortable" growth trend, continuining from whatever point the price is at that moment. So far, those trends always seem to become "uncomfortable" after a while, probably because fundamentals as perceived by the market don't support any capitalization beyond maybe the 100 million USD range (but almost certainly not the > 1 billion capitalization we see now). Since this market never seems to be inclined to simply trade sideways, price goes down, with force.

I could have seen the end of this pattern, with the July reversal. The way it looks now, that reversal ran out of steam pretty much completely. I'm not declaring it dead quite yet, but I can definitely see a repeat of the May situation as an option as well.

Nothing wrong with post hoc analysis, as long as you can learn something from it.

Also, your paragraph on time sounds a bit like saying "I want to make some predictions regarding the height of people in some group, but I'd rather not use the normal distribution to draw any conclusions."

Your desire to find the underlying causes for market behavior is laudable, but whatever pattern exists, does so irrespective of me knowing its cause.


The main problem I have with your hypothesised buying program is that it seems needlessly complicated and error prone for a whale buyer to consider using it. Say he has some target USD that he wants to invest in bitcoin. Why wouldn't he simply make use of a much simpler program summarized as 'widely spread buying, concentrated selling'. He could spend a week or two buying, at a slow enough pace not to start a substantial rally, then sell 1/2? 1/3? of the newly acquired coins in one or two large dumps. Ideally probably during a time of market indecision. (add some randomization of course to avoid the pattern to become too obvious)

tl;dr The entire equilibrium angle seems too convoluted.

I strongly disagree that our present market reflects 2012.  2012 was marked by stable hash rates which made mining a very thin margin activity and BTC exchange rates were mostly stable with a modest uptrend throughout the year that never got out of control. 

Nothing could be further from that now, were seeing exponential increases in hash rates and mining is highly profitable but that profitability is collapsing fast.  Exchange rates have gone through a huge bubble and are still in a Bear market despite recent rallies back to near $100, the fact that the rally ran out of steam their should in fact be taken as confirmation of the Bear market.

I see a 2011 repeat in all the places that matter, hash rates driven by new mining tech, public euphoria and media hype, the factors which have the power to really determine the market dynamics.  Naturally things can not and will not unfold exactly as in 2011, the market is bigger with a lot more USD in it and it's in the hands of different people with different strategies and different opinions.  Their are almost certainly whales trying to manipulate the markets but ultimately they can not resist the ocean which are the underlying factors. 

One key difference were seeing is that this post-peak bear market is deflating slower then in 2011, I ascribe this to the ASIC technologies higher capital to operating cost ratio, it takes longer for the ASIC operator to reach the point were the machine can't even cover its marginal costs so the point of capitulation is further in the future.  We also have the manufacturing capacity of ASICs acting as a limiting factor in the growth of hash rates, in 2011 the tech was commodity GPUs which were effectively available in unlimited supply to who ever wished to become a miner, now their is a waiting list a mile long.  Both factors indicate a longer slower bubble burst then in 2011.

Buy, sell, wait... what will it be?

Depends on the fraction sold at this price.

Your own graphs show quite clearly that the two major jumps in BTC exchange value coincide with new mining technology revolutionizing the mining business.  It is indeed not a cost push inflation model, that is what the naive BTCer thinks, that somehow the costs both electrical and hardware incurred by the miners 'support' the price of BTC usually through some hand waving that more cost equals more security or some other such drivel.

I am describing a radically different model that I'll call "Profit-Pull" as it is basically the inverse or the cost push model.  New mining tech causes mining to become radically cheaper, but miners don't take the new profits in Dollars, they take them in BTC and actually reduce their sales of coins onto the markets.  This leads to a run away price increase that only stops when new buyers run out and or coins from cold-storage jump in and break the upward trend.  

In a normal market such as for precious metal, miners never speculate in their own production, they liquidate it immediately, or even soon via futures contracts.  It is the irrational speculation of BTC miners that lead them into this trap, if miners would liquidate all coins immediately then the market would not go through these bubbles and miners would simply reap a large profit during these revolutions, unlike real commodities the mining equipment revolution can never actually glut the market with excessive coins.

Also I disagree that the wealth transfers of this latest bubble means this bubble can't unfold in a pattern broadly similar to the last.  In 2011 we had people who mined coins very cheaply selling them to a group of naive hype driven buyers who expected them to keep rising in value forever.  And now in 2013 we saw exactly the same hype driven and hopelessly naive people buying coins from people who acquired them at much lower prices.  Their may be more sellers and more buyers this time around and the decimal points have moved a bit but the motivations, expectations and market knowledge of people are broadly similar.  And that will lead to a broadly similar market even when the individuals are different.

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.

It is all so exciting and risky, and then to think Bitcoin is nearly perfect supply-inelastic and to realize the law of substitution,  doesn't apply in creating viable alternates at this time, Bitcoin is first a protocol (the original protocol) and secondary a voluntary agreement in participation to be governed by the rules of the protocol.

I get a kick out of almost every second reply in this forum, so many people have a good grasp on what's actually happening but they draw the wrong conclusion because they hang onto a preexisting idea. I am sure I'm no exception.

I'm looking forward to events unfolding, I'm still struggling with the fundamentals like why people will volunteer to exchange wealth for an opportunity to participate.

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.

I always look forward to reading your posts -- very informative.

In terms of modelling the finer structure of the market -- I've considered doing this for some time. There's a lot of data on the Bitcoin market and social networks, and we can likely quite readily model the different classes of current participants with a few key variables per participant.

If I had infinite free time, I'd love to try setting up a large-scale Monte Carlo simulation of these participants and model how they react to external stimuli... then keep refining the models until they showed decent correlation with historical data.

The ideal result would be a meaningful forecast of price resilience to possible stimuli. Or a Bitcoin "weather forecast" if you like.

I know it would be a big undertaking, and I'm not sure if a decent correlation would even be possible. But even the process would likely yield plenty of useful insights. I can't help thinking that it would be a more useful basis than traditional TA.

Yes I am just taking a direct 1/10th ratio from 2011 and I admit that may not hold up entirely which is why I pad it to up to $50.  I think that our similarity to 2011 is close enough particularly on the phycology side of the market to see similar results.  Not only has price followed a similar trajectory but so has the client download rate on SourceForge as well as to Google search trend for BTC.  I believe the ultimate price at the bottom of the market is determined by how much USD the diehard supporter community can continually put into the NET purchase of new coins daily.  Before the reward halving and at the $15 price that would have been $100K and I think that value has not changed significantly, the present $100 price would require $350K of new USD every day a level which I find unsustainable, in any case I have more confidence in predicting the bottom exchange rate ($30-$50) then the time period in which we reach it and how long we remain their.  The bottom valuation is a product of the community size and its disposable income and the daily coin production.  Timing on the other hand is a product of the hash growth rates and how long miners hold out at low or negative profitability, they must inevitable break but they could stretch bear market out for months.

Yes hash rates never substantially declined, they more crested and flatlined (really if you look at it the rate is exactly matching Moores law during most of 2012 indicating we were seeing a constant number of GPUs that were being turned over as newer models came out) with only a very small decline that ended after the exchange rate bottom reversed, I expect exactly the same thing this time.  The earliest generation of BFL ASICs operate at around 5 joules per GH and will be the first ones to obsolete while some of the KNC chips will keep running at 1 joule per GH.

I don't believe the sharpness of the hash rate growth pre-peak is particularly relevant to the exchange rates.  Miners are contracting supply as I described earlier but the ultimate market high is determined by how much of a buying euphoria can be generated in the public and how long the old coin holders can hold back before popping the bubble.  Also 2013 was quite clearly double exponential as well.  So while miner "profit-pull" may start the bubble it becomes self sustaining and self-popping shortly their after and the high profit mining bandwagon keeps rolling quite independent of it all, meanwhile the BTC market tries desperately to keep the price high, generally half the peak valuation becomes the initial line-of-defense.  You see this all the time on the trading forums, people urging "keep the price up, don't sell, be strong hand", the effort at a giant collective circle-jerk of price manipulation is huge and is the reason why we can't find a stable price when the mining output is being held back from the market, with no new supply and every BTC holder trying to maximize their unrealized profits the price can go to any number, it's only limit is the collective willpower of the community.  But once we see a consistent daily flow of minted coins hitting the exchanges and the 'strong hands' have to start putting their money where their mouth is and BUY not just hold, we can finally find a stable bottom.

@Impaler

I believe you're contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you began your argument by describing the unique situation in which btc miners are able to hoard, without overhead, a deflationary commodity. Which, as you said, would eventually lead to a bubble.

On the other hand you describe the decline after the bubble as being driven by the inability of the market to cough up the USD necessary to buy new coins off the market, to keep price stable.

Those two don't go together. According to your own theory of miner's behavior, the hoarding leads to an unsustainable bubble, but I believe the deflation/correction after the bubble would actually stabilize as a result of the miner's actions: miners hoard -> price bubbles -> price becomes unsustainable -> (1) either miners continue hoarding, then price doesn't need to go down further, or (2) miners sell whatever they have to take home profits while they still can at the current price, then the price is corrected down rapidly.

You have most of it but are leaving out the massive drop in mining profitability as hash rates and difficulty rise.  This breaks the miners out of their hoarding behavior gradually and the resumption of coins flowing onto the exchanges then breaks the back of the markets when they can't supply the Fiat necessary to buy the coins.

I don't think miners ever really dump large sums of coins when they stop hoarding, they merely sell a higher percentage of their daily mining output to cover electricity costs.  Earlier acquired hoards probably go into cold-storage and effective become no different from other large hoards from years past which are notoriously reluctant to come back into the market even during obviously unsustainable bubbles.

you expect a bursting bubble around 2600,- $ around christmas or new years eve ?

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hzmfys.jpg

Welcome back, we missed you!
I estimate we are in the cycle on April 3rd.
This would result in a peak of 320$ - 380$ IMO.

No offense but when we will be nowhere near that numbers you will probably convert again  ;)

I'm so glad to see you here again welcome back.

R being SA Rand? Or RMB?

Is that you buying all those XBT in China?

fantastic! as a long time R user I can say: wise move :P

My ignorance aside that is Good to know, I'm a great fan of specialization and division of labour. I also use computers but had no idea such a program existed.   :)

you might be interesting in: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=343504