Worse, the author doesn't understand what money is in the first place. Money is a claim on future consumption, it's a store of value, unit of account and means of exchange. But money is actually meaningless without ability to use it to buy something, so what is important to consider is whether there will be any productive output in the future that somebody with money can claim a portion of.
Given this, it is clear that any private issuer to emit money or currency that is backed by money. It is not government, that allows money to have value, it is private enterprise that produces something that gives money any meaning at all. Government cannot ever issue money, all money is supposed to be backed by productive output and productive output is not what governments do.
Government can issue currency, either it is backed by real money (gold) or it is not (fiat). Real money does not come into existence by the desire of either government or any private entity, that's why Bitcoin is 'doomed to failure', because it is not actually backed by any productive capacity. It is doomed to failure for the exact reasons that any fiat currency is doomed to failure and it doesn't matter who issues fiat, a government or a Bitcoin miner.
Now, I am not implying that Bitcoins will go down in price to 0 and not rise back up, I am not making any claim on the future price of Bitcoins. For all I know it is absolutely possible that 1BTC will = 1,000,000,000 USD in 2 years time, I don't know.
What I do know is that Bitcoin is a fiat currency that has no backing by any real money and it is indistinguishable from any other future (or current) version of electronic fiat currency and it is a tool of speculation. You will probably grow your savings if you buy Bitcoin even today and sell it at some future date.
If you fail to sell it at the right moment in time, you will probably lose your savings. That much is certain - eventually it will crash and not come up again, but when that will be I believe nobody can predict.
What I can say about this 'economist' though is that he does not know what money is, he does not know what currency is, he does not know what gives money or currency value and he is wrong about money being a 'tool of the state', that's a completely nonsensical statement. Money existed long before any states existed and it will exist long after any one of those states is gone.