While I dislike the coiners' "oh, you just don't get it" as much as you, I think a more charitable interpretation of GP is possible that rests on the fact that there are two interpretations of the word "commodity":

1. something (usually raw material or primary good) that can be bought and sold - Bitcoin sort of fits that definition.

2. something (usually raw material or primary good) that can be processed to produce something useful. Bitcoin is not a commodity in that sense, which might be what GP was trying to highlight.