Topic: If Bitcoin was backed by Gold, how would it change its adoption? (Read 2867 times)

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.

Touche.

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

bitcoin is backed my math and the networks' hashpower

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).

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 

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

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.

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.

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.   

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?

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

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

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. 

Imagine two white stripes people. 

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.

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. 

 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


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

And that ISN'T money laundering?

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: