Are we looking at the same article? It's satirizing paper vs digital money -- the focus is on money transfer tech, not monetary policy. The central bank stuff is about two paragraphs out of thirty.

Also, whether bitcoin is a "true" currency is orthogonal to the (satirical) point of the article, which is that paper currency would look weird if it weren't the traditional way and we were going to it from digital money. Whether Bitcoin currently handles 1, 7, or a trillion transactions per second is irrelevant here.