Like several others (who got downvoted, I don't know why) who have pointed out - this article provides no citations and confusing reasoning. The definition of "eventual consistency" is that all systems converge to the same state after enough time. Yet the author seems to be saying Bitcoin is strongly consistent because (if we ignore things in their variable state) it will converge to an agreed upon state.
Apparently it is up to you how you want to interpret the use of "strong" or "eventual" here.
Apparently it is up to you how you want to interpret the use of "strong" or "eventual" here.