If Bitcoin was backed by Gold, how would it change its adoption?

[hashman]

The only way to store substantial gold securely is to use undisclosed locations.  That doesn't lend itself well to a centralized, audited, "backed by gold" currency issuing institution which  as we know doesn't work anyway.  The idea is full of gaping security holes and also experimentally tested to be a failure.   

[noviapriani]

Attempting to back Bitcoin with gold would be like trying to back gold with silver. The bitcoin doesn’t need any help in the value department.

[IIOII]

Attempting to back Bitcoin with gold would be like trying to back gold with silver. The bitcoin doesn’t need any help in the value department.

Yes it's total nonsense.  You can always ask: What's backing gold? And then you will come to the conclusion, that gold is backed by nothing else than the effort needed to extract it from rocks. Creating bitcoin requires effort (energy), too. So bitcoin mining perfectly resembles gold mining on a virtual level (hence the term "mining" is used).

The concept of backing only makes sense when you have items like paper money that you want to have high trade value but that do not need much effort to create.
Bitcoin is unlike fiat money that can be created at will. So Bitcoin does not need backing.

Bitcoin is sound money like gold.

[twiifm]

Attempting to back Bitcoin with gold would be like trying to back gold with silver. The bitcoin doesn’t need any help in the value department.

Yes it's total nonsense.  You can always ask: What's backing gold? And then you will come to the conclusion, that gold is backed by nothing else than the effort needed to extract it from rocks. Creating bitcoin requires effort (energy), too. So bitcoin mining perfectly resembles gold mining on a virtual level (hence the term "mining" is used).

The concept of backing only makes sense when you have items like paper money that you want to have high trade value but that do not need much effort to create.
Bitcoin is unlike fiat money that can be created at will. So Bitcoin does not need backing.

Bitcoin is sound money like gold.

Except BTC is code so it can also easily be altered.  51% attack and all that

[Ozziecoin]

Attempting to back Bitcoin with gold would be like trying to back gold with silver. The bitcoin doesn’t need any help in the value department.

Yes it's total nonsense.  You can always ask: What's backing gold? And then you will come to the conclusion, that gold is backed by nothing else than the effort needed to extract it from rocks. Creating bitcoin requires effort (energy), too. So bitcoin mining perfectly resembles gold mining on a virtual level (hence the term "mining" is used).

The concept of backing only makes sense when you have items like paper money that you want to have high trade value but that do not need much effort to create.
Bitcoin is unlike fiat money that can be created at will. So Bitcoin does not need backing.

Bitcoin is sound money like gold.

Except BTC is code so it can also easily be altered.  51% attack and all that

There is something seriously wrong with this comment. 1. 51% attack does not alter past transactions due to checkpoints   2. The cost of 51% attack is extremely prohibitive 

[IIOII]

Attempting to back Bitcoin with gold would be like trying to back gold with silver. The bitcoin doesn’t need any help in the value department.

Yes it's total nonsense.  You can always ask: What's backing gold? And then you will come to the conclusion, that gold is backed by nothing else than the effort needed to extract it from rocks. Creating bitcoin requires effort (energy), too. So bitcoin mining perfectly resembles gold mining on a virtual level (hence the term "mining" is used).

The concept of backing only makes sense when you have items like paper money that you want to have high trade value but that do not need much effort to create.
Bitcoin is unlike fiat money that can be created at will. So Bitcoin does not need backing.

Bitcoin is sound money like gold.

Except BTC is code so it can also easily be altered.  51% attack and all that

There is something seriously wrong with this comment. 1. 51% attack does not alter past transactions due to checkpoints   2. The cost of 51% attack is extremely prohibitive  

The comment is not only wrong in relation to 51% attack. Even it were true it wouldn't be an argument for gold backing bitcoin, because if the system is somehow "compromised", how can you verify securely that anyone really owns the gold behind the bitcoins?

You can also produce counterfeit gold bars and coins (for example put some tungsten in it). In future gold might be produced as a by-product from nuclear reactors. So there isn't a 100% value guarantee neither.

To be clear: I'm not against precious metals. I just want to point out, that it makes no sense to back bitcoin with them (or with anything else).

[RepublicSpace]

bitcoin is backed my math and the networks' hashpower

[Ozziecoin]

bitcoin is backed my math and the networks' hashpower

In my view bitcoin is backed by the faith of the network of people that have invested in it.

[akiliholmes]

Apparently, one altcoin already has precious metal backing:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=598224.0;topicseen

This will fail hard, google the liberaty dollar.  That is exactly what is going to happen, MERICA physically can't go kill the owner of bitcoin because their isn't one.  Merica is just going to go steal the gold and silver from whoever is holding it to back the crypto, zero questions asked.  They use the word terroism and everything is a green light.

Touche.

[Ron~Popeil]

bitcoin is backed my math and the networks' hashpower

In my view bitcoin is backed by the faith of the network of people that have invested in it.

I have a lot more faith in bit coin than fiat all ready. If I could I would only use bit coin. Hopefully with more adoption I get my wish.