I believe the argument that $BTC is not the real Bitcoin because it is not 'cash' is a purely semantics based error.
If you look up the synonyms of cash, the first that pop up are: money, currency, legal tender.
Let's dive into the WP 1/x
Can payments be sent directly from one party to another without an intermediary? Yes.
allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted
third party."
Does that sound like $BTC to you? Sounds like it to me
"The more standard Wiki thing to do is that we should have a paragraph in one of the more general categories that we are an instance of, like Electronic Currency or Electronic Cash."
"If the supply of money increases at the same rate that the number of people using it increases, prices remain stable. If it does not increase as fast as demand, there will be deflation and early holders of money will see its value increase."
"It's time we had the same thing for money. With e-currency based on cryptographic proof, without the need to trust a third party middleman, money can be secure and transactions effortless."
"There are two ways to send money. If the recipient is online, you can enter their IP address and it will connect, get a new public key and send the transaction with comments."
Respect your thoughts in the space and would love to hear you opine on what seems to be a continuous debate on irrelevant points.