Quote from: Raize on June 15, 2016, 05:53:51 PM

Quote from: Fakhoury on June 15, 2016, 12:05:40 AM

1. Which model is the "too" conservative, once you said the later of the two models and once you said the first one ?

The one that says we're going to $60k over four years is too conservative compared to the one that thinks we'll be over $10k in under two years. I can't/won't explain why, but suffice to say that $10k in under two years is just the start of it.

Quote

2. Your best model or the model you are working on is the one that estimates $10K at Dec. 2017, am I right ? If yes, then why would be reaching $60's K at 2020/2021 could be wrong ? What will stop the increase ?

I'm just not divulging what happens after 2017, because I'm in this to make money and I need some of the people who could potentially read this to despair and sell into potential buy walls.

The $60k at 2020/2021 model also expects the price to bump over $10k briefly in early 2019, I just don't show that part. Suffice to say, the newer model is more accurate, don't focus too much on the old one.

There isn't anything "stopping" an increase, it's more of an estimation of human nature. What do you think is going to happen when the price goes from like just under $1k to over $10k in under a year? Of course people are going to sell. All my models attempt to do is use previous hype cycles to build expectations of the next price cycles, they are estimations of what could happen, not necessarily what is going to happen. I have backtested or verified them with respect to previous hype cycles, however.

Also, I am focusing on "bear side" potential, but I've had a few people who have PM'd me tell me I should focus on using the bull side data (with the assumption that bear side is too conservative and might be inaccurate because of this). I have not yet thought about averaging the two, but I'm not sure how you "average" together dates. It doesn't seem possible. Of course, I thought modelling trends in volume wasn't possible either and that proved to be wrong.

Quote

3. I believe in the $60's K somehow because from the above numbers, the numbers seems to go exponential, and this is how Bitcoin behaves, am I wrong ?

Well, the exponential price swings are more due to the hype cycle and human nature than anything else. The problem is that -- with Bitcoin -- the traditional hype cycle is also ingrained into the pricing structure for the underlying commodity. The more adoption the more valuable the underlying asset or unit is. In this case this means that Bitcoin will almost always hit higher "lows" after bubbles pop, but it also means that increases will occasionally be very short and very exponential.

I know there are number of people who say "with higher adoption we'll have less volatility", but that's an absurd comment to make at this stage of the game and perhaps in general. When talking about what Fakhoury mentions here, the "behavior" of an asset like Bitcoin, we should probably do a brief look into historical pricing. Has anyone ever heard of Jay Gould? Well after the gold rush and when the civil war was coming to an end, America had been trading for a few years in greenbacks but prominent people were calling for a return to a gold standard. Jay Gould had an idea to corner the gold market and devalue the greenback by having President Grant close the "gold window" similar to how Nixon would end up doing it nearly a century later. They convinced President Grant through somewhat-deceptive means, but perhaps with a valid argument. The notion was that by making gold scarce and highly valuable, the value of the greenbacks held by the public would decline and therefore goods would become cheaper to foreign countries. In practice, the price of gold went from low amounts to $145 and nearly $160 after the conversion of greenbacks to gold had been closed.

Over a century later, after Nixon closed the gold window, inflation quickly began to get out of hand. While Volker at the Federal Reserve had increased lending rates, the Hunt brothers and some wealthy Arabs used a similar tactic and their own wealth to corner the market on silver. This brought the price to over $55/ounce, something that wasn't met again till 2012. The "solution" that was used to stop them by COMEX was to argue with regulators that they needed to close margin accounts. This was used to force the price downward and the Hunt brothers were victims of this scheme despite the fact that it was not their fault the exchanges couldn't deliver on the assets. Ultimately, they were the recipients of the first big Fed "bailouts". I would speculate that while the Hunt brothers settled with those they owed, the US gov't may have worked on a deal with the Arab shieks that led to the start of the petrodollar.

The point of both of these examples is to show that silver and gold had been trading for centuries and they were still volatile. The idea that more adoption makes Bitcoin less volatile is errant, IMHO.

Right now we're in a similar situation as these two historic examples. With Saudi Arabia being seen less as an ally and more as an enemy (the death of the petrodollar) and Federal Reserve interest rates at all time lows, all that remains is for some enterprising billionaire to step in and first borrow as much as they possibly can to invest in Bitcoin and try to corner the market, using their own personal wealth and perhaps that of others as insurance against the borrowed money in order to litigate if they are unable to receive delivery of their coin. The market is ripe for this sort of turmoil, and someone could stand to make a huge amount of money in the process, as the media tends already to go nuts at the first sign of 10% or more increases in the price of the nascent crypto-currency markets.

So yes, I think exponential prices are possible, but I don't think this is some inherent "behavior" of Bitcoin, but rather as a result of speculators that are aware of the scarcity of coin, the hype cycle, and the nature of man. We've all heard the quote that necessity is the mother of invention. That may have been what led to Bitcoin to begin with, we needed it to combat the rampant inflation over the entire world. I'd similarly argue that scarcity is the mother of opportunity, and if it is possible to destroy the Federal Reserve banking system by borrowing against it to pump crypto currencies that will inevitably replace it, then some enterprising soul is eventually going to do exactly that.

Quote from: hacknoid on June 15, 2016, 03:32:44 PM

The question about where to start a cycle is interesting, and one I struggled with. I have already had to change the exchange I based my numbers on once (Gox was significant earlier, and since then Bitstamp is my source of numbers, and that may change again). But there was value assigned before that... thing is, if the cycle length is correct, when exactly it started doesn't matter. The up- and down-trends still match up, and the events occur ~900 days apart. The earlier you start taking data from, of course, the smaller the sample size, so I wouldn't weight it too heavily. I already don't assign too much value to cycle 1/phase 1, as the price was much more volatile and the market so much smaller.

Yes, bouncing around between exchanges and using early market pricing isn't ideal, but like you said, ultimately you just have to pull the trigger and start somewhere. I wanted to focus on the bear-side, and right from the git-go after Mt Gox came out at ~$0.10 the price immediately started falling, so I had to start there. What is sad is that the sample size was maybe two dozen total traders (if even that!) so it's probably not going to be great.

I like your 900-day cycle though, and I'll try to take this into consideration as time goes on. Even with us speculating here, there might be some risk, as many traders will take some advice as gospel and others will try to make money off of the people who try to follow it. I originally thought (at least in 2014) that the price of coin was going to fall to ~$60/coin, so I missed the bottom of $160 this time around. I did make some reasonably significant purchases in the $240 range, but it wasn't anything like I did back in November 2011 when I was able to spot the $2 bottom. Back then, though, we had these huge buy walls we could take advantage of, and those seem to have all but disappeared in the last 2-3 years.

Anyway, like you said, it might be fun to speculate, but none of this should be taken as actual trading advice. No one can predict the future. I just wanted to get some predictions out there for fun and this thread seemed like a good one to put them in. Maybe I'll be bumping it here in a year to do a "see? I told you so!" in jest. Good luck in your trading everyone!

I'm amazed at how professional and cultured you are, I'm really glad to be learning from some one like you.

Side note : I'm sorry hacknoid if the thread is taking another curve of what it used to be, if you are annoyed or something, kindly don't hesitate to PM me in order to take this talk into the PM's.

1. I still see as you said, the destination to $60K after 4 years, will start depending on your newest and best model, which speculate the price to be $10K at Dec. 2017, even if you didn't mean it, but I guess you stated it, or did I miss something here ?

I fully understand your intentions in making money from this, and all of us in this game for this, even the believers.

2. I had a conspiracy theory in mind and I would like to hear from you about it, aren't Governments and Banksters afraid of Bitcoin where for example assassination of core developers could happen for example ?

3. Could really governments start buying Bitcoins where they think that it's best for them to take Bitcoin as an friend not foe ?

4. What you think about this, since you've talked about this a bit earlier in your above reply

Quote

The bitcoin network is also by no means old, Segwit is about to be released which doubles network capacity, and the Lightning and Thunder networks which are in the pipeline are going to allow for literally billions of off-chain transactions per second.

I also agree with you that the Global Banking Cartel hates decentralisation. The banking cartels main competitive advantage has been the control of money supply. Presidents have supposedly lost their lives over this e.g. Abraham Lincoln and JFK. It goes as far back as the Rothschilds with the statement As long as I control the nations money supply, I care not who makes its laws. All central banks in the world are private owned.

Where I disagree with you is the fact that they cant ban bitcoin. It is exactly the same as the torrent file sharing network, every time governments attack it more nodes in the network keep popping up. My view is that deep down governments like Bitcoin, as the world has been run by bankers and not governments (and at times the difference between the two is a bit blurred). Money creation is finally being taken out of the baking cartels hands. I think that governments would have banned bitcoin now if they wanted to, they would control the onramps of fiat currency into digital currency by banning apps in the app store etc. It is also a catch 22 for them, they cant ban the bitcoin protocol as it transcends all firewalls, it is completely immune. All they can try and do is hamper it, and that causes the Streisand Effect.

There is also a bigger issue at hand here in that all fiat currencies land up becoming completely worthless. When America went off the gold standard in the early 1970s, Kissenger and Nixon made every country in the world buy oil in USD which created demand for the USD and any country that tried to renegade, they bombed. Gadaffi, Sadam, and now Assad. This created the petrodollar, which is now dying, as China is buying oil from all these countries in any currency except the USD (China just signed a USD400bn bilateral oil agreement with Russia to bypass the US). China is also dumping tons of American debt, which was being bought up by an unknown entity in Belguim at first, and now an entity in the Caymen Islands (everything points to the banking cartel buying it, because no one wants a vast stack of US debt anymore).

There is compelling evidence that the UK and the US have sold all their gold to China. Fort Knox could well be empty, and it is common knowledge that the Comex Vaults are empty. The biggest Ponzi scheme is that for every ounce of gold in the Comex vault (main gold vault), there are over 300 owners that are trading that same ounce in the gold market in the form of a worthless paper contract.

When the USD collapses, they cant issue another fiat currency as it would be exactly the same as what Zim did last month, it is massively inflationary to the point of finding yourself exactly where you started virtually immediately. They also cant offer a gold backed currency because there is no gold. It is conspiracy theorist, but it makes sense (Gordon Brown sold most of the UKs gold).

My personal belief is that that it is a stroke of genius from the US government:

1. Sell all your gold to China
2. When the USD slowly collapses everyone would flood to bitcoin to preserve their wealth as they cant use gold.
3. The US government debt which is denominated in the USD would be inflated away.
4. The US would then accept taxes and pay civil servants in digital currency, and they have not defaulted on their debt just let it inflate away.
5. Keep gold as a Barbarous Relic as they call it.

There is a great series of you tube videos to watch by a guy called Mike Maloney (Dad and Norm you must also watch them) which is very important to watch right now. It is called the Hidden secrets of Money: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mike+maloney+hidden+secrets+of+money

He states that we are going to see the biggest wealth transfer ever before 2020.

Another great website to follow is Zerohedge. It does sound a bit conspiracy theorist, but it is not in main stream medias interest to report on this as it would cause panic.

I saw the start of the bank runs here in the UK in 2007 with Northern Rock and people queuing outside the bank exactly like the great depression, the banks were bailed out by the government, and the can was just kicked down the road and the problems never fixed. South Africa never saw this because China piled in with USD35trn worth of debt to prop up the world economy and especially South Africa. Now all governments have passed a law stating that there are Bail-Ins, which means when the bank fails they first go for customers deposits to prop the bank up. It has already happened in Austria, Cyprus and Portugal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yc6Hp_Zq3rU

I remember the first day working at HSBC and was completely shocked to see that they were still using 1970s legacy systems, and I immediately thought that this has to change, and then I saw the network diagram that consisted of over 600 systems all connected with sticky tape. I thought how on earth is this going to be replaced with modern technology? I now know that you have to pretty much start afresh and personally feel that blockchain technology and specifically THE blockchain will be the solution.

Time will tell. I feel that the next 5 years are going to be the most important in our life time, and its going to affect everyone globally.

5. While talking in simple terms, what do you think about this as well ?

Quote from: zimmah on May 29, 2016, 05:47:39 AM

Quote from: arwin100 on May 29, 2016, 05:16:05 AM

Quote from: gentlemand on May 29, 2016, 02:33:10 AM

Quote from: zimmah on May 29, 2016, 01:53:02 AM

if it turns out as predicted, $50000 by march 2017 would be plausible.

That would require a mountain of real people to suddenly throw vast amounts of their hard earned money at something almost all of them still know zero about.

Theories and fractals and friends are all well and good but don't play along with the real world.

What da f thats to much prediction for you men, bitcoins price didnt really reach for that price as you mentioned and I see the biggest price reached by bitcoin in history is at 1k$ and follows by big crash hope it will not happen for this time, but for predicting bitcoin will reach to 50000 thats a lot of zero for predictinng and very imposible to happen and manny money tO invest so the price will go to that, but the nearly prediction price is @ 700-800$ mark by that it can be decent and true to come prediction and we can say safe zone for bitcoin to avoid big crash

it will happen.

huge rallies cause the price to overshoot and then a large correction happens, but it will always end up being higher in the end.

what you fail to understand is that bitcoin is LIMITED and therefore the only thing that actually is impossible is for the price to stay this low.

assuming bitcoin will be adopted by more users it means the price will have to go up. And not by just $50 either.

More like by 100x at least.

Even $700~$800 is way too low.

Next rally will go to ~$3000 at least, but more likely $5000

If there is one after that (most likely in 2017) expect to see 5 digits (40~50k)

it's inevitable.

Imagine 30 million people (and 30 million people is not a lot on over 7 billion people worthwide) all want to buy 1 bitcoin for $500. We won't have enough bitcoin. So they will have to bid higher and higher. The 'poorer' people will have to live with less than 1 bitcoin.

I can not stress this enough:

the average amount of bitcoin people will have is less than 0.003 bitcoin

so therefore, 1 bitcoin has to be an INSANE amount of money. and $50k is just the start. f you think otherwise, basically you're saying bitcoin will never be used by more than ~10 million people. And that's an even more insane prediction than the ones i am making.

Just because you lack logic and mathematical skills doesn't make me delusional. I base my predication on math and logic, you base your predictions on what your 'feelings' tell you is 'right'