By "real currency" I assume the author means a viable long term currency substitute -- he can't mean a medium of monetary exchange, as Bitcoin is already being

By "real currency" I assume the author means a viable long term currency substitute -- he can't mean a medium of monetary exchange, as Bitcoin is already being used in that manner. While there are some points worth a look in this article, he is sadly ignorant or misinformed about Bitcoin on a variety of points: - refers to Bitcoin as a "Internet play money fad" when the monetary base for Bitcoin is now over $1 billion dollars and has been running for over 4 years - claims its "origins don't inspire a lot of confidence" because it was invented by a "pseudononymous hacker", ignoring the fact that the client is open source and can be (and has been) read by anyone - asserts that "Bitcoin is backed by, well, the faith of those who are willing to put money into it", ignoring the cryptographic foundation of the protocol which is slightly more important than the faith of the users - confusingly states that Bitcoin could be a "glorified Ponzi scheme" because it might not be "really a crime" if someone steals Bitcoins from you (how would that be a Ponzi scheme?), ignoring that Bitcoins can't be stolen without stealing the Bitcoin wallet.dat, much like cash All in all it's a pretty shallow commentary with very little basis in fact by a business columnist with an obvious axe to grind.