No, that's not the argument made. It is a little bit more subtle than that. OP says that the roots of the first ever recorded bubble were in inept regulatory action. He adds that it was financial instruments underlaid by bulb prices that were inflated, not the actual bulb prices. The subtext here is that the analogy used by the article is not fitting since they are talking about bitcoin's price, not some financial instruments that takes them as input.

Nowhere does OP says that a Bitcoin bubble is impossible. He merely explains that it is interventionism in free markets that has historically been the root cause of many bubbles. Government intervention for which government intervention is required to correct the nefarious effect, in return begging for even more intervention, and so on... ad nauseam. There's a big difference between this thesis and the one you comment.

>Economic systems are a combination of markets and regulatory frameworks

That's a useless definition of an economic system because it grounds itself into a narrow category excluding others when instead it you want it therefore excluding others instead of being as general as possible. A better one would be simply: "an economic system is a configuration in which the five factors of production interact".

> you can't always blame regulations when the economics say things you don't want them to.

Again, that's not what OP says. He never said that free markets are precluded from doing harm. Only that government intervention is even more inefficient and harmful but in ways which are far greater to anticipate until it goes boom. Why? Because artificially changing the parameters of a complex systems creates tons of side effects, including hidden incentive feedback loops which prompts some actors to adopt behavior that are locally optimal but takes us into directions we do not want.

__