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

[LAMarcellus]

Apparently, one altcoin already has precious metal backing:

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

That alt-coin is not "backed" by gold. I can not trade my coin for a piece of gold from them. They are no different from the federal reserve.

Bitcoin however can be exchanged freely for gold.

[jbrnt]

My fear is google just does a pre-mine and backs a coin with a certain number of their shares. The GOOGLE COIN.....the coin that doesn't fluctuate madly and is instantly accepted everywhere.

That's a very interesting idea, except this "gcoin" need not be a crypto anymore. No mining, no blockchain... Google will be the issuer, exchange and clearing, behind closed doors (but open for FBI/NSA).

[TheDoors]

I believe it wouldn't change a bit. You can exchange now gold for bitcoin and vice versa. The problem of long not accepting bitcoin is that it's hard and scary for ordinary people to understand how it works..like all brand new technologies it needs good marketing!

[sana8410]

I think will be a good thing,most of the skeptical people will see it with better eyes a correlation between gold and bitcoin. Bitcoin and Gold price will go up.

[CADguy]

it would definitely attract a lot more peoples attention , although in the long run i dont think it needs that , that would also require some sort of centralization to back it

[coincup]

it's still a long and tough way to go in the next decade

[bottle1water]

buy and hold bitcoin is the most wisdom choice

[NXTplayer]

if bitcoin is backed by something,i think bitcoin will go into a failure

[Ozziecoin]

As Andreas Antonopoulos says: "What is backing gold?"

[delphic]

If Bitcoin was backed by gold, it would be merely a token for gold. An IOU, literally. And whoever physically held/controlled the gold could alter the exchange rate on a whim. Or remove that backing on a whim. Or by Presidential decree, if you get my gist. A central issuer would decree that it has value, and thus, necessarily, what that value is, in relation to gold.

Bitcoin backed by gold, or backed by anything else, would not be Bitcoin.

Bitcoin is backed by Bitcoin.

Bitcoin the 'currency' is backed by bitcoin the protocol.

It's value lies in the secure record of transactions called the blockchain, and it's value is derived from the work required to effect that security, i.e. the work involved in 'mining', the cryptographic securing of the blockchain. Proof of that Work is implicitly proof of bitcoins value.

Or to put it another way, the faith in Bitcoin's value is inextricably linked to the faith in the security, that is provided by the work required to ensure that security.

[Ozziecoin]

I can prove that bitcoin does not need to be backed by anything:

http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/

A picture is worth a thousand words or $44 Million, lol:

[cbeast]

I can prove that bitcoin does not need to be backed by anything:

http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/

A picture is worth a thousand words or $44 Million, lol:

And that ISN'T money laundering?

[STT]

 Put it that way and it sounds as bad as the dollar.   Dollar is backed by the dollar and to pay bills they issue more dollars to buy the dollar debt that is supporting the government that is backing the dollar.    Thats ok then, not a house of cards  

That is a nice shade of blue tbh

"What is backing gold?"

Its an element, it does have that certainty at the least.    Gold is a luxury or a store of wealth, its not a necessity.   If everyone was eating their dinner out of cans with a hunting knife by a campfire because thats how poor we got, I imagine gold would be a long way down the rank of worthwhile objects to collect as trading currency.
Thing is wealth and excess do exist and gold correlates to that, theres always going to be some guy who does well who has a good idea and has his feet up.   He has no need to store an entire farm of corn as his wealth, something like gold can make sense in this context.
    I take the general point and the massive irony that gold really isnt needed but gold does definitely have a reason for its valuation over the centuries and its not likely to change.

   However some money more practical for the folks just working on a wage wanting an un-politicised unbiased even exchange of work/wages would be good too

To those who say BTC is gold 2.0, it really isnt.  Its something else, superior in some ways practical and others not nearly as certain in its standing and regularity ?
Its not likely a good mix between the two

[RodeoX]

Backing just re-introduces counterparty risk and we're back at square one with this whole thing.
...

Amen! If you are willing to take on the risk of another entity then you should use dollars. They are backed by the government. They have a sketchy record, but still may be more trustworthy than most companies. 

[cbeast]

Backing just re-introduces counterparty risk and we're back at square one with this whole thing.
...

Amen! If you are willing to take on the risk of another entity then you should use dollars. They are backed by the government. They have a sketchy record, but still may be more trustworthy than most companies. 

You're ignoring the fact that Bitcoin has several unique properties and only focusing on the store of value. While counterparty risk is a big problem, business solutions for transferring assets will evolve that take advantage of Bitcoin as a decentralized protocol. That's what Bitcoin 2.0 is all about.

[Ozziecoin]

I can prove that bitcoin does not need to be backed by anything:

http://twentytwowords.com/canvas-painted-blue-with-a-white-line-sells-for-nearly-44-million-4-pictures/

A picture is worth a thousand words or $44 Million, lol:

And that ISN'T money laundering?

Imagine two white stripes people. 

[RodeoX]

Backing just re-introduces counterparty risk and we're back at square one with this whole thing.
...

Amen! If you are willing to take on the risk of another entity then you should use dollars. They are backed by the government. They have a sketchy record, but still may be more trustworthy than most companies. 

You're ignoring the fact that Bitcoin has several unique properties and only focusing on the store of value. While counterparty risk is a big problem, business solutions for transferring assets will evolve that take advantage of Bitcoin as a decentralized protocol. That's what Bitcoin 2.0 is all about.

I totally agree about that. Maybe I said it wrong because I mostly disregard it as a store of value. I do not sell bitcoin at all. I buy it, then spend it on the internet. It's utility as a payment network is it's real strength, IMO. 

[Ozziecoin]

I totally agree about that. Maybe I said it wrong because I mostly disregard it as a store of value. I do not sell bitcoin at all. I buy it, then spend it on the internet. It's utility as a payment network is it's real strength, IMO.  

This is a brilliant observation, which is why we are giving away 500 free ozziecoins, per person to the Aussie public.

[STT]

This is why side chains would be good.  You dont want to divert the whole blockchain on an idea like this, its centralised and could cause a danger to the network from the then greater disruptive forces available to outsiders.
On the other hand it might be good to encourage participation and it might even work in a minor way to get further exchange and trade done involving bitcoins and other major trading means like gold or other commodities even.   I think I read the side chain would be done on a contract basis so that appears to match how commodities trading is often done, a fixed contract at a set price but with multiple ownership over time and with varied views on its eventual worth

[solimi]

Currency equivalent gold position has gradually lost , however , gold and the dollar exchange is relatively stable , with gold trading with BTC , who take such a big risk?