[nezumi]

Some features of the quoted 'Austrian School's theory' seem remarkably close to Bitcoin: it "arises out of an unplanned, decentralized process. This takes time. It takes a lot of time. It spreads slowly, as new people discover it as a tool of production..." and "becomes widely used as money as a result of innumerable transactions within the economy".

It's arguable that the 'unplanned' part is not a necessary feature of a currency. In fact, no fiat currency in circulation today has survived without a significant amount of planning.

In contrast, the planning which went into Bitcoin seems to have made it closely fit the theory's description of money. Arguing that its planned nature negates its 'moneyhood' (to coin a phrase... sorry...) seems a little like arguing that an artificial organ won't work due to not having been grown within the host, or that a genetically engineered organism will fail due to not having gone through an evolutionary process.