Great post. We all should spend Bitcoin. Many Bitcoin users don't have enough foresight to understand the mid to long term consequences of not spending from their stack, in terms of the lost opportunity to kick-start a thriving bitcoin circular economy.

I just want to point to a minor issue, basically a confusion I see people repeating almost everywhere: Gresham's Law is enunciated in the context where you have two different physical coins with the same face value but different contents of valuable metal. The "bad money drives out good money" can only be understood properly in that context.

Imagine I make a coin that contains 1g of gold and I name it a Hal. I put Hal Finney's face on it, and everyone starts using them across the economy. People price things in Hals, salaries are denominated in Hals, etc.

10 years after, and doing what any sneaky politician would, I decide to fuck around with the mint. I make a new batch of Hals, but this time I put 0.9g of gold instead of 1g.

In the lenses of Gresham's law, the first Hal is the good money, and the second Hal is the bad money. The relative distinction comes from the difference in face value and content value. The trick comes from the confusion in prices in the economy: since everyone is used to price things in Hals, if a burger costs one Hal at my favorite restaurant, I can pay for it both with a good Hal (first gen) or a bad Hal (second gen). So, the smart thing to do is the pay with a bad Hal, since that way I keep more gold in my pocket. Hence, the bad money drives out the good money.

How does this translate to Fiat and Bitcoin? It doesn't. It's a completely different paradigm, since neither dollars nor Bitcoin have a face value and a commodity value.

I hope this helps understand Gresham's Law a bit better. It's quite amazing how the confusion has spread across the Bitcoin circles.