I find that lots of people doing TA in BTC often fails because of several things:

1) Failure to take into account exponential user adoption in an otherwise uncapitalized market.
2) Failure to take into account unforeseen news, for better or worse.
3) Failure to take into account foreseen news, such as new exchanges opening, and capital investment pouring in.
4) Failure to take into account unforeseen BTC development timelines, such as sidechains.
5) Ultimately not being able to see the forest for the trees.

The "rules" that Dan keeps bringing up doesn't work in the face of sudden developing news. Will we be talking about "corrections", "a, b, and c" when Second Market opens to the greater public? I think not. Will we be talking about "regression" and "downtrend" when sidechains crushes the altcoin market? No!

These guys doing TA in BTC assumes that they are still in a stock market when really, BTC is a stock, a currency, and an emerging technology that is the internet of money. The Elliott Wave analysis works only on a micro timescale, when it comes to macro timescale, these guys can't see the forest for trees!

$5000 isn't much. Think about it. All it takes is a $50 billion market cap and we know that's just 1/10th of Apple. You're going to tell me that BTC as a global currency can't even be a fraction of Apple? The guy doing the TA is too busy with his "A, B, and C" rules to see the emergent bigger picture: BTC doesn't play by the convention stock rules.

Not seeing $5000 for 3-4 years? Sure, if we assume that the bitcoin technology stays the same, the userbase stays the same, and capital not pouring in. There will be no Second Market, no Winklevoss ETF, no US exchanges opening, no sidechain, and on and on.