What kind of book is this?

[Oshosondy]

The bitcoin part of the book.

The remarks come in response to a passage in Professor Lawrence H. White’s book, “Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?,” which argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it too volatile to serve as a medium of exchange.

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

So that was the remark of Saifedean Ammous in response to bitcoin volatility because of it fixed supply whatever.

Bitcoin will become ‘less volatile’ and larger than gold: ‘The Bitcoin Standard’ author

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

[EarnOnVictor]

The remarks come in response to a passage in Professor Lawrence H. White’s book, “Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?,” which argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it too volatile to serve as a medium of exchange.

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

So that was the remark of Saifedean Ammous in response to bitcoin volatility because of it fixed supply whatever.

I've not read what they both said in details, but with the little you've shared, I could deduce some realities in both of them, even though they might not explain them to understanding of most people.

From Professor Lawrence H. White, I believe he meant the plausibilty of an aggravated demand-induced volatility that would be primarily caused by the inherent fixed supply of Bitcoin. By medium of exchange, he might not necessarily mean the lack of exchange, but the elaborate one where most people would focus on Bitcoin. If happened, the volatility would be chaotic.

From Saifedean Ammous, his own view is not a direct link to Professor Lawrence H's remark. I believe he is staying the present reality of Bitcoin, and also hinted on what could happen in the future if it continues this way. The "diminishing" speculation is not new, as it has been speculated by different important personalities, and some have been discussed on the forum.

[Sammysmart001]

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

I would say that professor White is obviously looking at Bitcoin through the eye of a traditional economics, this is because a lot of old school economists do believe that a good currency do needs an elastic supply.

Which means that a central bank can simple print more money for able to keep prices stable. Cause bitcoin supply is fixed at 21 million so for daily use they assume it going to be always too volatile.
And also about the future Ammous is obviously right. Cause if you check as Bitcoin total market cap grows you see that it takes more money to move price. Stability will come naturally over time with that massive size.

If you should ask me from my own view, Professor White is not necessarily pushing for fiat control rather he’s using old fiat rules to judge a completely new type of money

[Die_empty]

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

Both authors' views are debatable. Governments use monetary policy to control the flow of money in the economy. The government could decide to print money to match the growing demand for currency as an economy expands, or inject liquidity during severe economic downturns. This would help to reduce currency volatility.

In the case of Bitcoin, the price is driven by demand and supply. Since the supply is fixed, high demand would always increase the value, and vice versa. But Professor Lawrence H. White failed to consider the implications of printing money and how it affects the economy negatively.

Saifedean Ammous is also correct because Bitcoin is gradually becoming less volatile. It is assumed that as it matures, Bitcoin might become less manipulative. It would not respond sharply to political or economic factors.

[Agbamoni]

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

Saifedean Ammous is right about Bitcoin already in use for exchange between physical business owners, B2B, B2C, and P2P.

For Bitcoin to remain a medium of exchange, its volatility needs to keep reducing. But if it keeps reducing, Bitcoin would be less profitable for day traders.



This is the volatility difference from 2018 to date. If the volatility continues to reduce, nobody will use Bitcoin's volatility as an excuse for Bitcoin not to be used as a medium of exchange. Estimating a 20% reduction in the next 10 years.

[Zoomic]

From what I understand, I'll say both Professor Lawrence H. White and Saifedean Ammous have their respective reasonable points just that they're looking Bitcoin from a different point of view.

Even if Bitcoin has a fixed supply, it doesn't mean that the price will be stable since it'll still depend on the level of demand and when demand changes sharply, volatility will still naturally take effect.

That said, we are likely to see Bitcoin grow to the level of less dramatic price movement overtime as adoption and the market becomes more mature.

[Charles-Tim]

From what I understand, I'll say both Professor Lawrence H. White and Saifedean Ammous have their respective reasonable points just that they're looking Bitcoin from a different point of view.

I do not think Professor Lawrence H. White has a point than he is misleading people. I think what he meant is that if the price of bitcoin is increasing, the supply can be increased so that the price increase will not be noticeable. Also if bitcoin price is reducing, the supply can be reduced so that the reduction in price will not be noticeable. I do not know how that can work in a decentralized way.

[JiiBs]

“Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?,” which argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it too volatile to serve as a medium of exchange.

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

I think the horn of them are right, volatility might have reduced but do we think it would ever go away? I doubt that. I don’t think we would have Bitcoin without volatility given its fixed supply. Population rice, the presence of fiat and the fact that their would always be those that would hold rather than spend it like regular currency would always mean, the currency would be scare, leaving the populace to manage just a couple of the coin in circulation and there comes the price fluctuation.

[GeorgeJohn]

The two authors is writing based on their imagination or exaggeration..That's clear that so many people will give different theories about bitcoin, so it's based on how they understood the functionalities and the lifespan of bitcoin that prompte them to come up with theory...When looking at the both explanations, you will notice it's partial contradictory...For me the one of professor Lawrence H, is contradictory, everything he said about bitcoin...Actually, I will consider their points of view as a speculation, which we i can consider to be on hypothesis..

[shinratensei_]

The two authors is writing based on their imagination or exaggeration..That's clear that so many people will give different theories about bitcoin, so it's based on how they understood the functionalities and the lifespan of bitcoin that prompte them to come up with theory...When looking at the both explanations, you will notice it's partial contradictory...For me the one of professor Lawrence H, is contradictory, everything he said about bitcoin...Actually, I will consider their points of view as a speculation, which we i can consider to be on hypothesis..

They're discussing economics and as the old saying goes economics is the only field where two people can share a Nobel Prize for saying exact opposite things, having opposing argument is completely fine. In my opinion, Professor Lawrence H is telling us that volatility could make everything more complex as a medium of exchange, which isn't wrong. Again, economics is just over simplifying chaos. Both Professor Lawrence H and Saifedean Ammous can be true.

[Silikiem]

The bitcoin part of the book.

The remarks come in response to a passage in Professor Lawrence H. White’s book, “Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?,” which argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it too volatile to serve as a medium of exchange.

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

So that was the remark of Saifedean Ammous in response to bitcoin volatility because of it fixed supply whatever.

Bitcoin will become ‘less volatile’ and larger than gold: ‘The Bitcoin Standard’ author

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

m

They both hold a very strong position in their argument, bitcoin is struggling to break into day to day medium of exchange not just because of its volatility but mostly due to general adoption but that’s not to say that bitcoin isn’t or can’t be used as a medium of exchange especially across international borders as many merchants accepts bitcoin directly. If the argument is centered on bitcoin being primarily used as a practical medium of exchange to buy goods and services then we can say it has not gotten there yet but with mass adoption it can get there as we can see some countries now adopting bitcoin as an official legal tender.

[Jubilee58]

The bitcoin part of the book.

The remarks come in response to a passage in Professor Lawrence H. White’s book, “Better Money: Gold, Fiat, or Bitcoin?,” which argued that Bitcoin’s fixed supply makes it too volatile to serve as a medium of exchange.

But Saifedean Ammous, the author of the 2018 academic book “The Bitcoin Standard,” said that Bitcoin already functions as a medium of exchange and that volatility’s effect on that is likely to diminish.

So that was the remark of Saifedean Ammous in response to bitcoin volatility because of it fixed supply whatever.

Bitcoin will become ‘less volatile’ and larger than gold: ‘The Bitcoin Standard’ author

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

It is true that the volatility of Bitcoin is reducing as it grows in adoption, and in value, but Bitcoin cannot entirely stop being volatile because that is the nature, and if Bitcoin stop being volatile which means it's growth will become stagnant like a stable coin, it will neither go up nor down, and investors will now reply on the stability of their investment instead of growth on the long run.
Yes of course Bitcoin is already being used as a medium of exchange which I think Saifedean Ammous is right, although not as fiat currency but as a store of value. Some businesses, institutions etc accepts Bitcoin as  payment, and they do that and store them in a safe wallet for future purposes, only that the method might not be comfortable to a layman who lacks the knowledge of how Bitcoin works.

[Mpamaegbu]

And also about the future Ammous is obviously right. Cause if you check as Bitcoin total market cap grows you see that it takes more money to move price. Stability will come naturally over time with that massive size.

Yes, it may take a lot more money to move Bitcoin price in future if the market keeps up the pace with the generosity and recognition it has been showing Bitcoin but that doesn't mean there won't be whales who can still snap things up or cause it to dump. On stability, we can say we've less of volatility now but that's as far as I believe it can go. I don't think it will get to a point where Bitcoin won't be volatile at all again. I don't see that happening as long as it still serves both as a payment option and as an asset. It's the asset side of Bitcoin that gives it that volatility. It's that aspect that brought it to this level of acceptability and popularity.

[Marvelockg]

Is Professor Lawrence saying he does not know that bitcoin volatility is reducing or he prefer something similar to fiat in making which will be centralized and be subjected to price control by the central authority.

on the other hand, If White's main concern is that Bitcoin's fixed supply makes it too volatile to function as money, does it not suggest that he is judging a growing monetary network by its present limitations? if it is even a limitation to start with. Fiat money has a flexible supply, yet it hasn't escaped inflation or the loss of purchasing power. So why should Bitcoin's fixed supply be treated as a fundamental weakness rather than a monetary design choice whose benefits may become clearer as adoption grows? Is the real problem Bitcoin's volatility, or the fact that its monetary policy cannot be adjusted by a central authority?