Skip to content

Cryptocurrency analyst claims Bitcoin’s historic high of $ 20,000 was wrong

June 12, 2020

Timothy Peterson of the Cane Island Alternative Advisers explained this Bitcoin’s (BTC) historic high of nearly $ 20,000 in December 2017 was “wrong”.

In one Tweet As of June 11, Peterson said it took seven years to accept that Bitcoin was tampered with in 2013. This related to a recent judgment by a Japanese court that upheld data manipulation charges against the ex-CEO of Mt. Gox. Mark Karpeles.

Then he asked: “How long does it take for people to understand that $ BTC was rigged again in 2017 and 2019?” Before the meeting closed, it was claimed that the historic high of $ 20,000 was “wrong”.

Did we all have a massive hallucination?

Cryptocurrency analyst claims Bitcoin’s historic high of $ 20,000 was wrongCryptocurrency analyst claims Bitcoin’s historic high of $ 20,000 was wrong

Peterson does not advocate a half-hearted conspiracy theory that says Bitcoin’s historic climax or ATH never happened, only that it was likely due to tampering.

When asked “What defines a” real “ATH in [su] Understanding? “he replied that it was not in his mind, but in his math. He continued that a historical climax was legitimate:

Only if this is supported by basics that are measured using active addresses, hash rates and counts [de transacciones]. Otherwise the price is not sustainable. “

A price that differs significantly from the fundamentals is likely due to fraudulent price manipulation, he concluded.

The actual prediction is much larger

Peterson defended his recent comments by comparing current Bitcoin price movements to those just before the 2013 uptrend. A proportional trend today would result in the BTC price reaching $ 75,000 in weeks.

However, Peterson dismissed claims that he predicted such an increase. Instead, he claimed simply asked the hypothetical question: “Will history repeat itself?”

Peterson recently predicted that the price of Bitcoin would rise to $ 1 million in 2027 based on a growing number of organic users. He claims that this number comes only from mathematics, so according to his own definition, it would probably be considered a legitimate historical high point.