Quote from: hacknoid on December 16, 2015, 04:12:38 AM

Quote from: glendall on December 16, 2015, 02:38:21 AM

Bitcoin is simply not old enough to be able to declare any sort of 900 day cycles going on.

I'd say this is a fallacy, but interesting nonetheless, thanks for posting. But I think this is tantamount to a 4 year old ruminating on how there life has been a periodic and discernible cycle of positive and negative 230 day phases of good food and bad food.

Ha ha... nice one.

Can't say I completely disagree with you; there certainly is not enough evidence to say for certain whether the cycles actually exist, or whether they are simply a series of coincidences. I do find it especially interesting that if we apply the idea of cycles, it points to quite a rosy future at least in the near term, at a time when other factors are really looking positive as well (tx rate, exchange volumes, upcoming halving, ETF(?), etc.). So, maybe just a coincidence again, but I also believe human psychology also factors in to this, and so there may be a cycle at play behind it all.

I also tend to agree with what glendall said (this however does not cancel my interest in your work, hacknoid, which I already expressed earlier in this topic). I also think that it is too early to talk about seasonals if you have only 6 years of data available all together. No statistical meaning. On the other hand the cycles you plotted show some repeating patterns and do show compression between the max. peak value and the stable value in each time period, which aligns with fundamental arguments for the growth at linear pace and not at the exponential pace, as in the early days of Bitcoin. So, to some extent, that makes sense.