Well, I had some more communication with my friend.
He seems to be very concerned about the possibility of criminal usage for bitcoin.
I try to explain that the technology is neutral, and that crime should be fixed by fixing the root cause, ie. better parenting, better schooling, and give people opportunities and resources.
As the saying goes:
It's easier to raise a boy to be a good man, than to fix a broken man.
My aim was to tell him about bitcoin and let him know about it, but he went all defensive, quoting numerous bitcoin articles and saying that bitcoin has failed several times (as in Bitcoinica, Pirate etc).
I tried to give him the road analogy, a road is still working even if criminals runs on it, and there's fatalities with large car crashed. The technology (the road) does it purpose, but it's the individuals that
are using the technology that causes all the problems.
He seemed to be a bit black and white, either you use bitcoin and don't use traditional systems, or the other way around. It's not like that, I merely wanted him to know about bitcoins, and the opportunities it gives.
Although I'm pro bitcoin, I have no problems with criticism of Bitcoin as long as it's based on logic and facts. I'm not here to prove anyone wrong or to 'win'. I just inform, then people can make up their own mind.
But I think that dismissing something without properly understanding it, that's a bit silly. So at this point I think it became more of a back and forth issue about who's right and who's not. And that was never the intention.
He claims that he's an individual thinker, and doesn't get affected by the mass media, but yet he gives me countless links showing how bitcoin 'has failed'.
For example, this is one of the 'fails' he refers to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19486695And then of course countless others.
He also says bitcoin is shredded in secrecy and that there's no accountability.
I respond that it's all there in the open, the name of developers, the source code and of course, it's up to the individual to secure his own bitcoins.
Hm... Not really sure where I want to go with all this, but it could be a lesson for those who read this thread. Don't make judgements about anything until you truly understand it, and certainly do not let the media decide what your opinion should be.
Of course there's been a lot of 'fails' within the bitcoin community, but bitcoin itself (the protocol / the software) has worked as promised, and has delivered the infrastructure it's supposed to do for 4 years.
I'm also a bit surprised that media articles paints bitcoin as a failure, when big bitcoin services fail, would anyone of those journalists paint the USD as a fail if a big bank had some executives running away with the money, or if there was a heist of all the valuables at a central bank ?
It seems to me, since bitcoin is based on cryptography, it's something new and scary, and most journalists doesn't have the technical knowhow to understand what it's all about, so hence they just run with whatever sensational piece they have. This new, cryptocurrency thing - yeah, that exchange - yes it failed - ah - bitcoin failed again.
Brilliant line of thinking right there...
Edit: Yeah, and of course the statement: "It's not mainstream yet." Doh... what new tech was ever mainstream in the beginning (TV, mobile phone, computer).