It should be pretty obvious by now that all these features don't suffice
For something to become money it should be used as money, i.e. to be accepted as a universal means of payment or account. Therefore, until Bitcoin starts being used as money (in any meaningful degree), it cannot be considered as money even if it has all the required qualities and prerequisites money should possess. So there is not a big difference between tulips and Bitcoin primarily because its monetary qualities have been mostly neglected so far
The only problem with this view is that everything that is deemed 'money' is issued by the state. And money that is issued by the state has the incentives built in to eventually self-destruct, since the elites get to receive unearned power and wealth by issuing too much of it.
This has pretty much been modern human history. Among the strongest and longest lasting state issued currencies are the pound sterling and the dollar. Both are worth a small fraction in purchasing power of what they were, say, 100 years ago.