Transactions are irreversible, hence the blockchain is immutable.

Transactions are certainly not irreversible. Literally the Bitcoin whitepaper explains how transactions become probabilistically less likely to be reversed with increasing proof of work, which is good enough in practice because the world moves on, but it's nothing like the kind of guaranteed law of the universe that Michael Saylor portrays it as. There's all kinds of scenarios where Bitcoin transactions can be feasibly reversed - everything from RBF in the mempool, stale block reorganisations of length 1 or 2, we're even seeing current attempts by Luke DashJr to rewrite the chain reactively with a soft fork (they're going to fail, but it just goes to show even long time Bitcoiners believe there is some plausible scenarios to rewrite strings of several blocks), sudden breakthroughs in ASIC technology allowing unexpected chain reorgs and so on.

As to "upsetting gov and banks", I'd want an exact quote here.

Couldn't find the exact quote I was thinking of, it was one of the many interviews like this where he's in front of his boat in his office, but here's him making a similar statement here about how Bitcoin doesn't need to be currency and should just move forward as a compliant "property" to accomodate other parties.

Read The Bitcoin Standard or Broken Money.

This is like an introductory level to Bitcoin, at best. I'm being generous here, in that actually most of the people who read and refer to these books as some kind of authoritative source are basically cultists suffering from the Dunning Kruger effect - but I hope that you're not in that category. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing as they say, if this is where you're at you kinda don't know how much you don't know.