You are correct, and if the article said "Bitcoin is open source money", I would say "yeah, I knew that". But the article uses such a statement as the core component of an article arguing that cryptocurrencies aren't a speculative bubble.

Perhaps part of my frustration is that this is the latest in a long series of articles that beats around the bushes and fails to address any kind of meaty argument. They attack the weakest arguments, and lie or misdirect the stronger ones. Yes, we all know Warren Buffett and Jamie Dimon aaren't so great with computers, so why does that make Bitcoin any less of a speculative bubble?

Bottles of wine are money.

But they are not currency. Currency is what you settle your tax bills in. And ultimately you need to get hold of some at some point.

Ok, but how does that make the statement wrong? Gimp is open source photo editing, and many people have criticisms against it compared to photo shop, but it's still open source photo editing.

Aitrean pointed out the irrelevance of that fact 25 minutes ago, in response to your original post.