Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on September 28, 2014, 02:23:28 AM

Quote from: CoinBurner on September 27, 2014, 03:15:37 PM

Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on September 27, 2014, 02:53:11 AM

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
http://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

wow so if this plays out ...

http://i.imgur.com/pbg1EEw.png

ehmmm sorry I couldn't resist Grin

serious question now: some weeks ago I stumbled upon a BTC long-term wave count from http://www.elliottwave.com/ in which they labelled the december high as a [V], predicting a massive retracement to early 2013 levels. By the way, during the July-August 2013 rise the same guys were swearing that it was a B correction, and soon bitcoin would have fallen in a terrible C wave... we all know how it ended!!
so question is: could the whole Gox affair, and in particular the infamous willy bot (which seems to have started its operation around that time), have played some major role in heavily distorting market dynamics ? Have you (Ryan or any other EW master) been surprised back then by the price evolution e.g. by some evident EW rule (or at least guideline) violation which in hindsight could have been attributed to this massive market manipulation??

No rules were broken, bent or otherwise. The chart still counts out in a valid count since the April 2013 high. As I said in my quoted text, the $1163 BS high can be either a completed cycle (as stated by EWI) or the 3 of [III] where [ I ] was the $32 high.

Indeed I was caught off guard initially. I thought we would get a standard ABC due to the huge rise we saw, and have a C that ended above $32, but below $50. Price ended up drawing out a perfect triangle on Bitstamp, and only a weak wave-E on Gox, then we were off.
I don't know that it was manipulation, per-se, in that correction, but it definitely set in stone in some peoples hearts that Bitcoin could not go down, and especially go into the price territory of the previous high.This thinking will eventually be futile. If not during this bear market then possibly the next, but it WILL happen.

Quote from: Raystonn on September 28, 2014, 01:22:52 AM

Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on September 27, 2014, 11:21:35 AM

Quote from: Raystonn on September 27, 2014, 04:47:14 AM

Quote from: RyNinDaCleM on September 27, 2014, 02:53:11 AM

Quote from: Raystonn on September 27, 2014, 02:09:43 AM

We are currently in (C). It looks close to ending, perhaps near 30x. We should then resume our bull market with (I), right? Where are we in terms of SuperCycles?

Thanks

There are a couple of options for the all-time count. One that we have finished a full five wave cycle in which case the next rise would be building on the [ I ] of [[III]]. The other (and imo, more likely) scenario is that 1163 was the top of (III) of [III] and we are about to complete [III] with the next big rally to new ATH's.

This is the more likely count in my opinion
http://i.imgur.com/Un9xN3G.png

Interesting. This chart would imply a [I] that is very much larger than the [III], no? The earliest price I see for the start of [I] would be 0.04951. From that to 31.91 is massively larger than the labeled [III], which is supposed to be the largest. How do we deal with this discrepancy?

EW is price based, so the rise in 2011, while astronomical on a percentage basis, is not nearly as big on a Dollar basis. Also, 3 cannot be the shortest wave, but it does not have to be the largest wave either. In most bubbles during Bitcoins' short history, the 5th wave is by far the largest wave however, for intraday waves it is not the same story.

I don't think you can truly stick with a linear interpretation of price for something with exponential growth, like Bitcoin. That would imply close to $30 of price increase for wave [V], which is completely wrong.

$30 is definitely not even a little bit likely, but it's not necessarily "wrong". Following an asset like stocks, where the 5th wave == the 1st wave by price, that is exactly what it means. But many have said it, and it's true... Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock!
Bitcoin doesn't trade like a stock in that, it trades more like a commodity, like gold. The 5th wave is usually the biggest, but still with less power than the 3. Also, remember that there is no rule about 5th waves... The 3rd wave is already the biggest (Or at least not the smallest) so the 5th can go up a long way. Almost indefinitely, but there still must be a top, somewhere.

Any chance you want to do an analysis using log(price) instead of price?