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
The reason for that was quite simple, though
But it is no longer applicable, anyway. Money was the state's privilege simply because they had the monopoly on the means of communications and could easily intercept anything you might send over, say, a phone line. With Internet reaching almost every hole out there and encryption all over the place, this is no longer the case, so this monopoly is essentially over too. Money as cash doesn't play a significant role in today's world, it is transferring value over long distances with minimal delays which is what counts nowadays