The problem I have with gold bugs who advocate a gold backed currency such as Rickards and Schiff is that gold backed currency has been tried and failed. It failed because of a central point of failure and in the US this central point of failure is the federal reserve and it failed to maintain a dollar peg to gold. Einstein's definition of insanity is "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." By that definition, all gold bugs who want a gold backed currency are insane because it has been tried and failed miserably. Don't try it again. Bitcoiners are the sane ones for trying something different.
A gold backed digital currency would be great but these three conditions cannot exist simultaneously for money:
1. Digital
2. Backed by gold
3. No third party risk (no central point of failure - decentralized)
The next best thing is to have 1 and 3 exist simultaneously, which leaves us with bitcoin.
With Bitcoin Specie, we get all three.
Bitccoin is not backed by gold so we don't get #2.
In fact, it is.
Bitcoin is backed by many things.
Everything for which you can redeem your bitcoin is what backs it.
The math and software and block chain hashing make bitcoin valuable, but that is different from backing. Backing requires redeemability.
The problem with #2-#3 is when it is all kept in some central vault.
A gold coin standard with a flexible free market valuation gives all three.
Bitcoin does this now. You can buy gold or silver with bitcoin, and sell them for bitcoin.
This is not a true gold standard. If it were, then a fixed amount of bitcoin would be directly redeemable for a fixed amount of gold. This cannot exist in a trusless environment. What you speak of are just market rates. By your logic, the Argentinian peso is backed by gold.
There is no true Scotsman.
If you define 'true gold standard' as one of the many gold standards that have existed in history and literature you can pick one that doesn't match the facts of today.
The gold standards elucidated by Richard Salsman's excellent work "Gold and Liberty" published by the AEIR list many including probably the one you are thinking of, and presents very strong evidence for what would be the best and ultimate gold standard, one based on the free market rather than a centralized authorities proclamation. Very close to what you dismiss as 'just market rates' is a gold standard that can stand the test of time.
Gold and silver provide pure anonymity in point of sale transactions. They are not so good at being sent over the internet as Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is not quite as good at point of sale. With both, you get Rickards dream coin. Its already here. Its called Bitcoin.
Gold and silver cannot be sent over the internet. Period. All you can do is send an IOU for gold or silver over the internet, which requires third party trust. Bitcoin gives us 1 and 3 but not 2. All 3 cannot exist simultaneously. Unless someone can make all 3 happen at the same time, then bitcoin is our best option.
I would suggest that all three can (and do) exist simultaneously, and that with all three, Bitcoin remains our best option.
