I was hoping to see why it isn't money in the article. He doesn't say. He also didn't read about bitcoin, because he concludes the article with,
"We don’t really know how this coin is created. You can’t have a functional money without a basic transparency."
I remember when journalists actually learned about what they wrote about.
The biggest problem I can see with bitcoin is its value is directly related to its popularity. Where dividend yielding stocks will give you a return in a currency the government will always use, bitcoin's value is always tied into what you can get cashing it out. If it wasn't for bitcoin's strengths (as difficult to exploit, steal, and sieze) and the resilience of the Internet, it wouldn't be as successful as government backed currency.
A mildly amusing conclusion I inferred about bitcoin's design: the same conditions required to break the network (having over 50% of the mining performance) are the same conditions required to devalue the currency (excessive mining and dumping).