In 2015, companies will have to have a bitcoin strategy similar to how companies had to come up with an internet strategy in the 90s.

You think in the 90's companies has strategies to promote the internet?
They did not, they had strategies to promote their own company, one way being with the use of the new fangled 'internet'.

LOL wow, you can't read either eh?

at least I understand how to calculate the BTC 'market cap'.

No you don't , you said market cap was all coins multiplied together. I can quote you on that , market cap boy

I think you will find most (if not all) companies have a reasonable idea of what they are going to do as a company, before they start.
That usually goes beyond 'we are going to make and sell stuff" or "sell stuff'.

If you think (I know it's a challenge for you) that these companies had strategies for how to market themselves on the internet by just "sell stuff" then you learned how hundreds of groups failed to sell anything at all on the internet.

Accepting bitcoin is a lot different than using the internet. Its more like accepting credit cards than it is using the internet. So yeah

Simply accepting bitcoin is only one of many steps that a business can do to prepare a bitcoin strategy.

This article, especially the headline and lead seem pretty misleading. From the lead graf: "The Ponemon Institute report, commissioned by tech giant hp, found that 79% of respondents planned to support digital currencies like bitcoin in the future." You seem to be getting this from Figure 11. But those responses seem to regard the respondent's general attitudes towards "virtual currencies", not their companies' specific plans.

Also, the report itself is pretty sloppy in the terms it uses. It seems not to really differentiate "e-wallet solutions" or tech like NFC payments from "virtual currency," including in the numbers you're citing.

Anyhow, I guarantee you that 79% of American "organizations" do not currently have plans to integrate cryptocurrency into their operations. That's an absurd number.

yes, but you are not supposed to notice things like that here, it upsets the narrative.
This is one of those "preaching to the choir" places.

I would agree that 79% of all American organizations could not possibly have been polled for this. Probably of the limited amount they asked they got a 79% response instead.

even over the phone?

Sounds like a bs survey.

The correct term is "is a CDBTCBS article"

"The report's authors point out that the participants, primarily working
in IT operations, security and technology deployment, are “all familiar
with and involved” in their organisations’ electronic payments
practices."

So the 'polled' businesses already work in IT and are probably aware of the freaking BTC protocol....I knew this was a BS survey. So the other 99% of US businesses have no clue what it is lol

Is the only thing holding it back is the fact that its a new digital technology that has its own complications? and it may take longer to process the various transactions in relation to paper and credit card payments.

If bitcoin is considered an "existing standard" then more people feel
"Existing standards (such as bitcoin) are NOT sufficient for ensuring the security and tenegrity of innovative electronics payments.
"Security of innovative electronic payments (such as bitcoin) is a top priority for 'their' organisation"
So companies think payments are important !!! (go figure), but more important is security and authentication.
So you could be popular, if you can get it right, otherwise, not so much.

Didn't Apple just recently introduce a 'e-currency', and visa, mastercard and other bit players like Google are active in the market, so you 'assume', they are all referring to bitcoins !!
The hubris.

Apple pay is not an e-currency. It's a wallet which you put all your credit card data into. Research would have told you that.

so an 'email' is just a paper letter done electronically ? Apply pay is an e-currency.

So what's the current exchange rate, Apple Pay / USD ?

The term "currency" has a very specific meaning. It does *not* mean "payment processor." And it certainly doesn't mean "digital wallet."

PayPal are much closer to your definition of an "e-currency" than Apple Pay will ever be. Without considering PayPal's attempts to integrate bitcoin.

When the pound euro dollar and renminbi collapse, what are you going to use? Another currency. Most likely an "e-currency."

Apple Pay will not function. Credit cards will not function. PayPal will not function. The entire traditional banking system will grind to a halt. None of these things are independent currencies.

Bitcoin won't care. It is an independent currency. Even a nuclear war will barely tickle it.

e-currency is just a catch phrase, what you are really talking about is e-commerce, Apple pay seems to hold far more promise in e-commerce than bitcoins appear to do.
'digital money' is common and has been around for far more years that bitcoin has. (or will ever).
It's not new, and it's not innovative.

"Digital money" is *not* the same thing as "e-currency." Or whatever you want to call cryptocurrency.

The banks use "digitally represented money." It is still government issued fiat. It still blocks your digital toilets when you try to flush it.

Just because it is digital does not make it an independent currency. Digital pounds in the bank are the same as pound coins in your paws. The same value. And the same legal status.
Cryptocurrency or e-currency? These are *independent currencies*. They have nothing to do with toilet paper. Nothing to do with any country. Or bank.

There is nothing innovative about a new currency. And there is nothing innovative about sound money. Gold provided this for centuries.

The technology that makes cryptocurrency exist on the internet *is* innovative. Before 2009? It was impossible to move sound money without physically transferring an object.

You could transfer promises. Which is also a form of money. But this isn't sound money. Promises can be broken. This gives rise to centralisation. A bank or government. Which you can "trust."

But now things are different. A technology has been created. A technology which allows promises and protocol to be backed by mathematics.

This is the most innovative technology since the industrial revolution.

I think you are playing a game of semantics here.

"The banks use "digitally represented money."
It's money and it's 'digital' therefore it's digital money, it is EXACTLY the same as what bitcoin is 'trying' to do.
I have a card in my pocket, it has digital information that allowed me to spend my money, no money is in the card, just digital information.
You can play the semantics game all you like, it wont wash with the real world, the real word understand's what digital money and e-commerce is. (without bitcoins).
Normal people see bitcoins as trying to do what the banks have been doing basically forever.

>>You can play the semantics game all you like, it wont wash with the real
world, the real word understand's what digital money and e-commerce is.
(without bitcoins).

YOU can play this game all you like, but even those with digital bank balances and debit cards denominated in ZWD weren't protected from the hyperinflation Zimbabwe suffered in 2008. Your 1 billion ZWD's that bought $1 USD worth of goods in January 2009? They didn't buy even 1/10th of 1 US cent's worth by June.

Similar could be said of those using the Reichmark, which lost 94% of it's value from June to Dec of 1922. Obviously no one had any 'digital money' at the time, but had they, it wouldn't have meant any difference aside from it being easier to use those millions of marks to buy your daily groceries. You get it? Digitally represented fiat is no different than paper fiat bills.

'Digital currency' in the form of Apple Pay or USD cards or digital bank ledgers, will not insulate you from any problem related to the purchasing power of the underlying currency. That's the issue that most of us care about, if I may speak for others. The BTC protocol defines its creation schedule and places a finite cap on total supply. Neither is the case for any fiat currency. They're created at will, by the declaration of any number of entities (chiefly the Fed or Congress, but also any lending Fed-member bank), not finite in supply, nor created at any predictable or consistent schedule.

You understand? Meaningless tokens pumped out at any rate and without limit, by a small, closed group of entities, are not as good at maintaining value longterm compard to meaningless tokens created at a defined rate and up to a defined limit, by anyone who wants to participate. The former can be represented digitally, but it makes no difference in terms of value over time. So you definitely can use Apple Pay or whatever other surrogate digital dollars you want, but it doesn't affect their value over time, as they explicitly dependent on the underlying fiat currency. Typically when people say digital currency, the mean something entirely independent. Could be some centralized, uncapped thing like Linden Dollars or airline miles, or something decentralized, capped, and having a defined creation rate, like btc. But digital currency, in most modern parlence, does not have an underlying fiat currency. Apple Pay, Paypal, etc are not digital currencies. They're just surrogates for other currencies.

God, you are such a schill for the banks it is sad. How much do you get paid to spout your "banks are amazing so we dont need to change them" nonsense on bitcoin websites? Do you not realize FIAT funds wars?

no wars start all by themselves, but what a silly statement "fiat funds wars".
So if you get rid of all currencies there will be no more wars ?
But we've come to expect those kinds of immature comments from you.

Wars start themselves? I didn't know wars had consciousnesses and could think...

You know perfectly well the US dollar funds war and terrorism and private military as you were in the military.

To stop the wars you need to get rid of the ability to print unlimited amounts of money, AKA FIAT. But you know this as you are a common troll here and seem to want to spend your retirement trolling bitcoin forums.

The current exchange rate for Apple pay and USD is 1 to 1 assuming you are using apple pay in the US.

Apple Pay is NOT an currencey, did you even looked for info about than. Noob, go have a look at there site, idiot.

Bitcoin is NOT an(sic) currency either, and yes I did looked into than. Noob,
Yes, I have "go have a look at there site" !!!

Then you can show people a link that has the ability to buy an apple pay. If you can't then you have zero exchange rate for apple pay to usd.

buy and "apple pay' as you would buy a Bitcoins?
So that would be shares in Apple, for the same comparison.

No, it would not be shares in Apple.

That is like saying the market cap of Visa is equal to the total money supply in all countries in which Visa operate.

Clearly that is nonsense. The market cap of Visa as a company is *tiny* compared to the money supply.

Shares in Visa and the money transferred by Visa are two different things.

This is why it isn't accurate to compare bitcoin's "market cap" to the market cap of corporations.

The total value in toilet paper of all bitcoin is commonly called market cap. This is non standard terminology. The closest thing to strict "market cap" bitcoin has? The market cap of all bitcoin companies added together.

This is the closest thing bitcoin has to your "shares in Apple."

So misleading headling, "Find important' and "plan to adopt" ARE NOT the same !