I disagree wholeheartedly. The article is based around the fallacy we've seen time and time again, of throwing more cryptography at a problem that cryptography alone cannot solve. In the end, a crappy password is a crappy password. Successfully discouraging your users from using a crappy password has much better repercussions (for the user, for you, and for the web in general) than switching from a hash-based authentication system to bcrypt. Use bcrypt for additional security, but do not use it in an attempt to solve the problem of crappy passwords that the article falsely claims bcrypt solves.

To be more technical, bcrypt, like PBKDF2 and other schemes of that nature, add a significant amount of additional computation by iteratively applying a primitive, but still maintain a relatively small circuit size (in comparison to the primitive itself, which is usually designed to fit onto smart cards and the like). Creating and using algorithms which are "memory-hard" or require larger circuits reduces the number of circuits one can place on some area of silicon and drives up the cost of an attack. In other words, mounting an attack on bcrypt or PBKDF2 is still cheaper and potentially much faster than we'd like it to be (which is the reason those algorithms are "tunable"--you scale the number of iterations up as computers become faster). This, along with some example memory-hard functions was the topic of Percival's paper, "Stronger Key Derivation via Sequential Memory-Hard Functions," which correctly cites Bernstein as the source of emphasis on practicality in measuring an attack not by computational complexity, but the cost of launching the attack. See http://www.bsdcan.org/2009/schedule/attachments/87_scrypt.pd... if you're interested in reading further.