He could be well off because I think that calling the top of v is looking too far ahead, we are not in the fifth wave yet and have no clues. In the case of a fifth wave we could expect $1000 - $5000 in an extreme case. DanV wouldn't agree with the idea of a fifth wave blowout, he prefers the idea of a diminished fifth beause the III wave was so steep. $5000 is allowable within the current count, although extreme. I dont see $10,000 justifiable in the near future, but certainly possible in a few years.
If a count proves wrong, it may be absolutely wrong. In this case the count is quite strong though so I wouldn’t fore sake EW altogether. Do you have a long term (starting in 2010) chart with the counts on it? |
|
|
|
How precise-but-inaccurate can EW be? Can he be off by an order of magnitude? Instead of reaching $1000 as predicted, could it go to $10000 and still be precise? I find DanV's elliott wave analysis to precise, but not accurate. That is to say his wave count is dead on, but his price target is historically off, and he admitted himself that he doesn't fully understand the instrument of the bitcoin technology. DanV's first BTC analysis, October 2013:  My longer term Dollar Index analysis suggest that in the next week or so we might make intermediate bottom and then retrace in possible abc zigzag to the upside which you attain the upside target of 82 - 83 area before reverting to downside. During this period I suspect the BTCUSD will likewise trade in side way range. That's just one example of many of his off-predictions. If you want to see how reliable a person's TA is, backtest their predictions: https://www.tradingview.com/u/DanV/#search-charts=BITCOINDanV has gotten some predictions correct including the latest one... but if you shotgun enough darts at the board as he does, you're going hit the mark eventually. IMO, DanV's track record shows that his wave count is consistent, but his price target is off by a mile. Good EW analyst with limited understanding of BTC's fundamentals. |
|
|
|
|
He started the morning (US) with a 30K wall. Off and on during the day, the wall disappeared and reappeared. Since about 6 hours ago, the wall started at about 25K and now about half is gone. Price has stayed at $300 for those 6 hours.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's fundamental value in the current era is as a store of value. That will drive the price north to very high levels (eventually).
Only then will Bitcoin have value as a medium of exchange because only then will the market cap be so high that volatility is low.
|
|
|
|
Im hoping people will begin to move away from comments like these.
Bitcoin price only goes up when consumer adoption begins. And we are not to that point yet.
Demand en masse must occur for the price to rise. We are still in merchant adoption phase.
-B-
This is pure nonsense. It rose a billionfold without consumer adoption. |
|
|
|
u r so dumb, u r really dumb, 4 real.
hide ya coins, hide ya wallets, cause they crashin' everybody out here |
|
|
|
Yeah right!!!! 50/50. you are giving way too much credit to these stupid theories about minimum wage being the whoa is me problem in society. There are much bigger problems regarding lack of community input and lack of investment and too much money and control going to too few at the very top. This has been a problem for a long time, yet you can muddy the issue as much as you want by trying to suggest that there is some kind of meaningful split of opinion... when there is NOT.
You have some pretty bad economic intuitions. It's a fairly fundamental tenet of economics that if you increase the price of something, demand for it goes down. Yes. I understand basic economics, and I understand that there is more than one formula to be used to analyze a situation. As you may understand, we do NOT use supply and demand to analyze all economic questions. So you're saying supply and demand do not apply to labor? |
|
|
|
Yeah right!!!! 50/50. you are giving way too much credit to these stupid theories about minimum wage being the whoa is me problem in society. There are much bigger problems regarding lack of community input and lack of investment and too much money and control going to too few at the very top. This has been a problem for a long time, yet you can muddy the issue as much as you want by trying to suggest that there is some kind of meaningful split of opinion... when there is NOT.
You have some pretty bad economic intuitions. It's a fairly fundamental tenet of economics that if you increase the price of something, demand for it goes down. |
|
|
|
|
I have a feeling this is going to be negative PR. He's a leftist big-govt type. He's going to hate the essentials of Bitcoin.
|
|
|
|
|
Here, "quarter" means calendar quarter, i.e., 1st quarter = Jan through March, etc.
Also, let's define a "bubble" as at least a 5x gain within a 4 month time period.
|
|
|
|
|
He makes a false dichotomy. I'm a market anarchist because it's practical and everything else is less practical. That's my ideology.
|
|
|
|
Whatever one's personal views are on regulation, if Lawsky comes out with positive framework, that should be the catalyst for Wall St money to openly pour into the space. That will increase the price. Unfortunately regualtion seems to act more to protect a precious few than stop people being ripped off (SEC being a good example).
Happy for someone to give me a more informed opinion!
There's a simple easy "positive framework" that Lawsky can come out with. Heck he could've done it a year ago: "Do not defraud people. Do not steal from people. If you do, you go to jail." That's it. Anything beyond that is crony capitalism. What's the likelihood Lawsky comes out with this simple easy "positive framework"? |
|
|
|
|
Why did you post my phone number??? NOT COOL!
|
|
|
|
As much as that sounds awesome, that means that the market cap (assuming most of the 21 million coins are in circulation by then) would be 21,000,000,000,000 (or 21 trillion).
I forgot where I heard about if BTC reaches 300k, that would be around gold standard.
To me, it seems mind boggling and might (or might not) go around those areas.
[edit]: If bitcoin becomes international payment (around the world). Seems more possible (then if it just stays mainly in one area (like China or US or something)
Payments is small time. If you add up the market caps of VISA, MasterCard, Western Union, and Paypal, you get on the order of a couple hundred billion. The money is in the wealth assets. Gold itself is $6 trillion. And gold is a very very small part of people's wealth. Add up real estate, stocks, and bonds, and you'll see some monster numbers. Heck, just add up the nations of the worlds' reserve assets. I can readily see Bitcoin becoming THE reserve currency of the world. Now that would be a big number. This is why I don't worry about merchant adoption: its use as a speculative store of value is the primary driver of the price, and it's much more important. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin doesn't have to reach full adoption to achieve its fullest value - it just has to look probable that it will, its all pricing expectations ultimately.
If $1,000,000 is full value then we are currently pricing in a 0.057% chance that this happens (EDIT: not entirely accurate, lets use very low probability instead), possibly a little low? or the market does not believe that $1,000,000 is really the final value, in which case move that trendline lower as it's location is entirely dependant on slipperyslopes' $1,000,000 assumption.
Your argument is essentially correct but is missing one component: an efficient market. For that we need easy entry into the asset and we don't have that yet. It's only easy for small time US citizens to get bitcoins (Coinbase). It's hard for people elsewhere. It's especially hard for large institutions to get in. Until it's easy for Wall Street to put in (and take out) billions at the click of a mouse, we don't have fast price discovery. My guess is if a Bitcoin ETF existed, the probability of Bitcoin hitting $1 million would be much higher as reflected in the price. |
|
|
|
I feel like USA is trying to control bitcoin as heavily as other nations.
So USA = Communist ?
On their way. Communism thrives in the US in academia, media, education system, unions, and the civil service. |
|
|
|
|
When did Bitcoin become so attractive to commies?
|
|
|
|
|
This is awesome. Thank you for posting this and teaching me something.
I'm wondering if you add an analysis: the number of consecutive days in various groupings:
Group 1: 1 and 2 first digit
Group 2: 2, 3, 5 first digit
Group 3: 6-9 first digit
When I look back at the long term chart, there's really only been two periods when there were numerous consecutive days (weeks actually) with the first digit between 6 and 9: back in 2011 when the price ranged from 0.5 through 0.9, and the last 5-6 months.
Edit: Actually, you don't necessarily need to break it down into groups--using the same single number histogram is fine. What I'm curious about is the consecutiveness of the days (or weeks).
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
