Not with Bitcoin.  It has never had a 2000x increase in 6 months.

That may all be true, but not the OP's fault.

Stop being an asshole.  The Chinese govt is the enemy, just as all govts are the enemy, not the Chinese people. 

Looks like fractal pattern might be holding after all, but with a variation.  If so, a near-term might be happening in the next day or two.

To me it looks like the current action does not match the previously repeating fractal pattern.  If I had to guess, the underlying action of the market is changing into a new one.

No.

There would be no incentive for mining.  The system would be insecure.  It would die from double-spends.

The price also acts as an incentive for current holders to spread the word.  Why are people badgering businesses to accept it?  Because they hold it and want to its usage spread so its value will rise.

This same incentive will be used to fund Tor nodes, peer-to-peer ride sharing and apartment renting, mesh internet, etc in the future.  It's vital to blockchain technology.

You sound like a jackass any time this issue comes up.  I'm sure Amir Taaki does not support terrorists or murders-for-hire.  However, it is REALITY that enhanced financial privacy also increases terrorists' financial privacy.  It's time to stop denying that.

The internet has empowered child molesters.  Now, instead of being isolated in their little neighborhood believing they're the only ones with that instinct, they can find other child molesters on the internet, hide out on chat rooms, talk about the best strategies by which to molest children, get away with it, etc.  I'm assuming you still believe the good that comes from the internet's existence clearly outweighs the bad.  If you expressed this opinion and someone said, "Don't be a fucking idiot and say you support child molesters!" wouldn't you think they were a jackass?

It's time to face up to reality.  Enhanced financial privacy for the everyday user enhances financial privacy for terrorists and child molesters.  That's a fact.  There's no use in denying it or pretending that's the case.  We're all adults here.  We can handle some imperfection in our world. 

Why is this in Speculation?

This is fairly mind-blowing.  I started to see this in DanV's video.  Actually, I saw the "mother" and child" before I saw his video but his video crystallized the idea.  I just went to bitcoinwisdom and pulled up Huobi's charts (since it has the most liquidity) and even on 15 min, 5 min, and 1 min timescales I see the same pattern as in the top post repeat numerous times as I scroll to the left.

One thing you gotta remember about Rickards is that he has no earthly idea about Bitcoin.  I say that as a fan of Rickards.  I like his thoughts on the global monetary system.  But he's been steeped inside the system so long that he can't see anything outside of it.  Check out this video:

http://www.bloomberg.com/video/malka-rickards-debate-bitcoin-utility-longevity-662IxXXTQl2e~49s0UZNhw.html

Look at all of the fallacies he talks about.  So take his opinions with a grain or spoonful of salt.

Remember, if the currency fails, miners have no incentive to mine, and the hashrate falls.  The protocol cannot be secured.  If the currency fails, everything about Bitcoin fails.  Rickards doesn't know what he's talking about.

Are you saying that the part inside the box looks like what follows?

Or are you saying that the part inside the box looks like the whole?

Do you by chance have a link to this?

As I understand it, Wave 5 should be less powerful than Wave 3.  This is essentially the basis for DanV's prediction that we won't see $5000 any time soon: wave 3 has happened, and wave 5 is up next.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Zuj8xYUpY

My question is-- do the rules of E-Wave analysis change when one is analyzing commodities? 

I ask because, in my experience, commodities generally have a "blow off" top to end bull runs.  In other words, the final part of the bull is usually the strongest part.  That goes against the rule that Wave 5 has to be weaker than wave 3.  And Bitcoin, in my experience, trades much more like a commodity than a stock.

The argument against the idea that Second Market's ETF/exchange is that it's priced in by early adopters.  One could imagine the Second Market exchange opening with a ton of fanfare with a lot of newcomers rushing to buy Bitcoin, but the price not making new highs because the early adopters will sell to these newbies.  I'm not saying this WILL happen, but rather, it's a possibility to account for.

The altcoin market is tiny: Litecoin has 1/10 of the market cap as Bitcoin.  The next biggest market cap is 1/10 of Litecoin.  In other words, you can approximate the entire alt-coin market cap as 1/10 of Bitcoin's.  If you're being charitable, it might be more like 1/5.  Either way, that's a max 20% gain if Bitcoin takes over the entire alt-coin market cap.

Having said that I do believe one bullish argument you noted: $6 billion is not enough of a market cap on which to run the world's financial system.  That's why I keep holding my position.

To clarify, that's not me making the analysis, but rather, someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8Zuj8xYUpY

It goes on and on, so you can skip to the right part, but the big picture message is, Don't expect $5000 for another 3-4 years, and be prepared for the price to possibly go way down in the intermediate term.

(Note that he does expect a low soon in the short term.)

Do any of the e-wavers have any feedback on this?

OP is in a panic.

Great post Solomon.

Yes.

You don't need absolute bearish sentiment ,I.e., a majority. You simply need relative bearish sentiment, I.e., worse than at any point (or close to it) since the $1150 peak.

Speculation is essential to Bitcoin's success.  Without speculation, only a few nerds would be trading it back and forth; it's value would be about $.005/BTC.