Currency, by definition, is state-backed.
Bitcoin is a MoE without it needing to be a currency, and that's the reason why it helps separate the state from the money issuance.
Discussion
I agree with your description. He was indeed saying that is not currency as you not buy things ("coffee" was used as example), so underrating the MoE quality of bitcoin. I strongly believe he is not favourable of lightning or ecash on bitcoin, and hence why never talks about that.
He can go piss against the wind, won't change how things evolve.
There's no room for centralization, even in day-to-day commerce. As long as one's bitcoin inflows are higher than its outflows, one can and will remain ahead.
A SoV narrative can't be taken seriously if there's no MoE quality that precedes it.
Idk if your time machine is broken but you're after El Salvador so this doesn't make sense
There are categorical differences between a state adopting bitcoin and a state issuing its own currency.
And?
And.., that sets bitcoin apart from traditional currencies.
Uptight about semantics much?