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 comp

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?