A fair enough terminological point, but in this case, I'm not sure it is much more than a play on words. The parent was clearly talking about longer-lived debt and debt financial instruments, where the debt changes hands so the debt-closing parties aren't necessarily the same as the parties that formed the debt.

To quote:

> Because no one can be compelled to accept Bitcoin to extinguish my debts to them (i.e. by the courts) and I can't pay my taxes in Bitcoin to my local government (no, "just-in-time currency exchange doesn't count).

In the edge cases of (almost) immediately resolved debt, this is a non-problem, given that we can simply agree not to complete a transaction in case one of the parties involved doesn't want to accept Bitcoin. Hence, the fact that you cannot be compelled to accept Bitcoin is irrelevant in this situation.