> This is one problem gold bugs seem to gloss over: sure your currency might technically be backed by gold (or whatever) but that's only the case because there's an enforcement mechanism on the humans involved (ie the government). And that government only exists because the people collectively will it. So there's really no difference between this and a fiat currency.
How do they gloss over it? This is like one of the primary grievances most of them seem to talk about -- that currencies which used to be backed by gold are no longer, so clearly there was no supernatural force that was inextricably linking a dollar and an amount of gold. They're openly and explicitly unhappy with the government's change of currency. I don't think I've encountered any who thought that gold backing could transcend the government. Although that being said I'm talking about the traditional Ron Paul style "gold bugs" here -- I haven't really followed the lunatic fringe of crypto culture so maybe that's what you're referring to?
You're saying gold bugs complain that the currency is no longer backed by gold. As an aside, the US dollar has never been 100% gold-backed in its history. Ever. Not once. Anyway, my point is that even if it was gold-backed (even to 100%) there is still trust required that that's actually the case and you're reliant on the government to actually enforce that.
My point is that a gold-backed currency is no better than a fiat currency because you're still reliant on a government and collective delusion either way.
You misunderstand the gold bugs' position. They do not believe they can somehow make a currency that is impervious to a rogue government's meddling or is free from the need for any government regulation or enforcement. They believe a gold standard is a better monetary system than the federal reserve fiat one in use now.
Trust can be eliminated by switching to commodity money (made of the commodity, such as gold), with the option of appraising the money during a zero-trust transaction (those with trust can take minted commodity money at face value). Fiat and gold-backed currency is not the only option here.
How do they gloss over it? This is like one of the primary grievances most of them seem to talk about -- that currencies which used to be backed by gold are no longer, so clearly there was no supernatural force that was inextricably linking a dollar and an amount of gold. They're openly and explicitly unhappy with the government's change of currency. I don't think I've encountered any who thought that gold backing could transcend the government. Although that being said I'm talking about the traditional Ron Paul style "gold bugs" here -- I haven't really followed the lunatic fringe of crypto culture so maybe that's what you're referring to?