Exactly and E-Gold, which by far the price is always dependent on how much the current price of gold.

Ok then, it is backed by gold. But what's backing gold?

It's not a real cryptocurrency, it's an informal ETF.

People that still think that true cryptocurrencies need backing do not understand how money evolves.

ya.ya.yo!

This was announced a few weeks ago. And there are hardly any details on your link. Much more info here: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/news/new-gold-backed-cryptocurrency-inncoin-allows-mine-gold-free/2014/07/18

not when the gold is physically stored away in Anthem Hayek Blanchard secret safe, where no one knows if he or one of his staff are selling the real stuff off. (so investors ask for public audits PLEASE!!!)

id rather trust maths which is something that cant run away or claim bankruptcy from a sauna bench at a sea facing hotel in hawaii.

not really, lots of people trusted mark karpeles to store the real value in his cold store (safe) while they traded digital representations on an SQL database and look where they are. he ran off with the real value.

bitcoin itself is flawless in my eyes, but having to trust a third party with something that 'backs it' .. thats not for me
secondly 'goldmoney.com' doesnt use its 'receipts' for buying real world stuff or paying wages with. so if the company went bankrupt the receipts retain no other purpose.

same with the new independance coin. its distributed under Anthem Hayek Blanchard's new company, probably only traded on his exchange and only maybe, just maybe convertible to real gold delivered to your house by him too...

in short
no matter how secure he makes his IOU's, no matter how uncounterfeitable the IOU's are.. they are still IOU's of gold.

he might aswell make facebook credits that are only useful for poker chips within facebook.... in my eyes. even if those chips are real.. i prefer not have to trust a third party

I would never trust a digital currency that is backed by a commodity stored centrally or decentrally. this is a recipe for disaster that introduces counter-party risk.

This has already been tested before with DGC, Liberty dollar , and egold. You can almost guarantee that the commodity will be stolen by the bankers, a government or third party or leveraged.

If I had a choice between a digital currency backed by individuals who secured their commodities themselves and a digital currency in which centralized institutions who were regulated and audited stored the commodity I would choose the latter. Both are dangerous and open to corruption. Your suggestion is far more dangerous however.

How do you prevent fraud, anonymity or the theft of the commodity after it has been registered?

bitcoin needs backing by nothing.
if i want to invest in an asset i want the asset, not a IOU voucher, receipt, certificate that represents the asset whilst someone else physically holds it.

EG mark karpeles
while people played on his exchange pressing buttons and moving SQL database balances (IOU's which get redeemed for real bitcoins at withdrawal). karpeles was saying all the proper bitcoins were in cold store...... look what happened.

the bitcoin i own is in itself the asset, backed by but maths which is the bitcoin. its not stored in any third party service or by anyone else that can run off with it.

any crypto coin backed by an asset makes the crypto coin no longer the actual asset, but simply an IOU, which gets redeemed if you ever get to have an agreement that you have the real asset delivered to you.

we need to keep the crypto technology out of the old IOU game

I never said bitcoin needs backing. I'm saying that I think that bitcoin will coexist along with other cryptocurrencies backed by precious metals. Because people are most likely going to prefer having a physcial asset backing their currency, if given a choice.