Gold standard and fractional reserve banking
On the gold standard (and its twin GEP, i.e. gold equivalence provision) proposal, I am agnostic. I don't think it would change much, and I don't think it would do any damage. Here is why.
The real disease is the habit of printing more money than you have goods and assets. This is what drives inflation. Printing can be accomplished directly - by minting coins and/or physical paper or indirectly, via fractional reserve banking (FRB). In our economy, FRB is the preferred way to print money. People railing against fiat currencies are in fact railing against FRB.
FRB is at least as old as banking. Already Philip the Fair, when he initiated the most famous bank run in the medieval history, found no gold in the bank, but only paper securities which he could not negotiate. But he probably wasn't the first victim of FRB either, because merchants have been using notes as paper equivalent of gold long before these events - perhaps as early as in the times of the Roman Empire, if not earlier. So you can easily have too much money printing and inflation under the gold standard.
FRB, or at least, the possibility if it, is born each time when you accept strings of 1 and 0 bits as gold's equivalent. When you trade stocks on the internet without actual bullion changing hands, you accept fiat currency. Under the gold standard, you can still deposit a ton of bullion with your broker, open a margin account and buy 10 tons' worth of stocks, which is certain to create inflationary pressures on the stock market. In 1929 the market crashed under the gold standard because of the excessive leverage used by the players.
On the other hand, if you decide to get rid of FRB, this doesn't have to be under the gold standard. You can always have 100% reserve requirements no matter if the main currency is in dollars, gold, seashells, or plain old paper. In the USSR banks did not give loans to consumers, so no inflation could take place unless the minister of finance literally printed too many paper bills. Then Gorbachev allowed enterprises to take unlimited loans in "cashless rubles" and hyperinflation spiked immediately. If rubles were literally made of gold, the end result would be the same because you could transact with cashless rubles, effectively using 1 and 0 bits as currency.
Even when it comes to physical money supply, there is no reason it can't be manipulated under the gold standard. First, government can always borrow gold from other governments and increase domestic money supply. Moreover, it can borrow more gold than it ever intends to repay on the theory that creditors won't demand their gold back at the same time. Another possibility is to start from a low base: when the gold standard is introduced, keep most of the gold out of circulation and then gradually expand gold supply during the next 30 years. As far as economics is concerned, the result will be the same as the result of 30 years of monetary expansion under the fiat currency regime. Then when all 100% of gold is in circulation, we go off the gold standard again and repeat the cycle.