Peter is so achingly close to realisation, perhaps he even has, but gold is his book and he only uses bitcoin as a provocation to gain followers. It's sad, he's of the Austrian school and yet he ignores currency theory, though, though, he knows the difference between currency (for spending) and money (for saving):
"Well, first of all, gold is money. It's not currency. And so there's a difference between money and currency. So currency is backed by money. So when we were on a gold standard and we had paper that was redeemable in gold, the paper was currency. The gold was money. So currency is like a money substitute. But you can have two kinds of currency. You can have legitimate currency which is backed by real money or you can have fiat currency which is backed by nothing. And so what we have now is is fiat currency. And the question is, well, could we replace that with Bitcoin?"
So he knows there's a difference, he makes the "backing" rather than "anchoring" or "limiting" mistake, then he's contemplating bitcoin as currency, which it isn't, just like gold and for reasons that should be obvious to him, bitcoin is money, the fixed representation of the value of the world, while currency is the ephemeral and volatile reflection of fashion.