Bubble will be officialy over only after we cross 30.

[lucas.sev]

Disclaimer: it feels fantastic reading posts from a year ago where people warn each other about falling 5$ wall, knowing that now BTC trades over 20 times higher than that. But bubble requires capitulation stage. And 50$ will not be capitulation, 50$ will be "cheap coins!!!". Capitulation will be when people will be afraid of buying into it, because there is a short way from 30 to 15. And then from 15 to 10.

People who sold 10k USD worth of bitcoins at 15$ and bought back at 5$ now have 210k USD worth of bitcoins, as opposed to those who held and now have 70k USD worth of them. Yeah I know, primary school math skills for the win.

I believe in a year or two we might see topics laughing about panic when it went below 100$. But do you not agree that only then the capitualtion will begin?

[mgio]

Have fun living in a bubble then.

[oda.krell]

When I read the title I thought "oh great, another one of those panicky and unsubstantiated doomsday posts". I'll admit I was wrong, you present your claim with an argument.

I still disagree with your conclusion :D

Your argument stands and falls with the bubble/capitulation hypothesis, the belief that after a speculative bubble the value first needs to fall back to pre-bubble levels before growth can continue.

There are two problems with this argument: 1) to identify when the bubble began, and to what level we would have to fall back, and 2) that I don't believe the hypothesis to begin with.

The problem I have with applying this idea universally and unconditionally to any situation that arguably qualifies as a correction is that it basically assumes that trends are independent functions. Applied to bitcoin, it essentially amounts to saying "no matter what goes on, the price will fall to n% of the peak value, because that's how the bubble correction trend works".

I think that's an utterly naive model.

Here's what I think: I don't rule out we will go back to 30 USD. I'm not even ruling out we'll fall lower than this. But the way it works, in my opinion, is that there are several possible trends, both up and down, that are at work during certain time frames, and which trend applies is heavily dependent on outside factors.

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.

[lucas.sev]

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 accepting BTC) would be enough can cancel the bubble effect. I agree with that wholeheartly.

[oda.krell]

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.

[lucas.sev]

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.

[randrace]

Your avatar sports some cool frames; I'll give you that.

[Le Happy Merchant]

Your avatar sports some cool frames; I'll give you that.

Imo the guy looks like a hipster tool.

[lucas.sev]

Your avatar sports some cool frames; I'll give you that.

Imo the guy looks like a hipster tool.

You could say, I knew about BTC before they were cool  Appreciating your constructive comments gentlemen.

[blackreplica]

I suppose this is subjective but IMO the sentiment here was one of MASSIVE capitulation when the price went from 266 to 50 virtually overnight. Most threads were screaming doom, panic and fear. Very few were thinking 'cheap coins' (I did though) If capitulation is needed to move on....my opinion is we're past it, for this recent bubble at least. In future there will be many more capitulations.

[Malawi]

I suppose this is subjective but IMO the sentiment here was one of MASSIVE capitulation when the price went from 266 to 50 virtually overnight. Most threads were screaming doom, panic and fear. Very few were thinking 'cheap coins' (I did though) If capitulation is needed to move on....my opinion is we're past it, for this recent bubble at least. In future there will be many more capitulations.

It was a crash alright, but it was more of fear-based flash-crash rather than a proper capitulation.

But it shows that the market is not really comfortable anywhere above $50. If there was real confidence in BTC prices, it would not be possible for it to drop 10% in a day as there would be lots of buy-orders just below market value as that would be considered cheap coin.

The main value in BTC now is speculation based on future pricing rather than based on a sentiment of hard value.

[lucas.sev]

I suppose this is subjective but IMO the sentiment here was one of MASSIVE capitulation when the price went from 266 to 50 virtually overnight. Most threads were screaming doom, panic and fear. Very few were thinking 'cheap coins' (I did though) If capitulation is needed to move on....my opinion is we're past it, for this recent bubble at least. In future there will be many more capitulations.

It was a crash alright, but it was more of fear-based flash-crash rather than a proper capitulation.

But it shows that the market is not really comfortable anywhere above $50. If there was real confidence in BTC prices, it would not be possible for it to drop 10% in a day as there would be lots of buy-orders just below market value as that would be considered cheap coin.

The main value in BTC now is speculation based on future pricing rather than based on a sentiment of hard value.

Yup, that is my opinion as well.

[Bitcoinpro]

lol 30 i wish it could drop to this, what stock or anything in the world do people dream of the price falling like bitcoin

[anu]

But bubble requires capitulation stage.

 A sunny day requires a thunderstorm in the evening? A marriage requires a divorce?

[Malawi]

lol 30 i wish it could drop to this, what stock or anything in the world do people dream of the price falling like bitcoin

It's not about dreaming, but about real valuations. If something is oversold it will fall back, and seeing that fallback makes it possible to buy at a different price. To think that the price will fall is not like thinking that it's failed, just that the current value is "wrong".

[Malawi]

But bubble requires capitulation stage.

 A sunny day requires a thunderstorm in the evening? A marriage requires a divorce?

No, more that a sunny day does not mean that it will never rain again. A marriage does not require a divorce, but there can be no divorce without a marriage.

[_mr_e]

Oh I'm glad that will make it "official". Thanks!

[ThatDGuy]

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:

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).

Then you simply replied to the entire post with this:

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.

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 written.

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.

[lucas.sev]

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:

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).

Then you simply replied to the entire post with this:

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.

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.