The author of the original article also cites that as some kind of reason for something. It's pretty irrelevant, though. If you have your Bitcoins stored on a

The author of the original article also cites that as some kind of reason for something. It's pretty irrelevant, though. If you have your Bitcoins stored on a market, your "transactions" don't go through the blockchain. It's just a field in a database then, indicating how many Bitcoins a user has stored on an exchange. The argument would be the same as as claiming "to transfer stocks, you have to deliver them by mail to the recipient, so it takes at least two days". Or indeed the same with money. If you wire somebody some money, no actual money is moved. It is just fields in a database of banks changing, that indicate how much money the banks owe you. We are so used to it by now that we think of it as actual money changing hands, but it is not. So I am sorry, I can only take the article half serious. The author seems to be driven too much by his disdain for Bitcoin than by actual facts.