1) Whether or not it meets the (or someone’s preferred) definition of currency is wholly incidental to the answerer’s explanation, so even if correct, this is not the place to make the point.

2) Bizarre non-sequitur that equates finiteness of currency with zero sum utility which is a real stretch and easy to find counterexamples for (eg chore tokens).

For the cherry on top, it links Medium as a main source.

Is that a good enough justification to downvote?

The most persuasive defense of Bitcoin as a store of value is that the world needs precisely one digital store of value, and game theory may dictate that it will end up being Bitcoin.

But yes, Bitcoin is obviously ridiculously volatile. I tell friends that there is money to be made, but you need to have a very strong stomach for it.

It has always had potential to be a currency, but it requires a context of use in order to actually function as a currency. That context is still being established, and until it is, any basic evaluation of "is bitcoin a currency" will result in a "no".

I think you're wrong.

An illustration could be McDonald's offering of a burger for $1, where you'd prefer burger and McDonald's would prefer $1. If you give them $1 and McDonald's give you the burger, both of you would be better off.

It's an important distinction to make, because the statment "Oil's value is controlled by the market" isn't very true.