not quite... it's that bad/good money doesn't have _meaning_ until you're comparing it with some objective third thing... in the time periods where Gresham existed, and where the Law would apply, you have bimetallism i.e. there's a fixed ratio of gold to silver. 

Meaning, there's an incentive for you to pay with the "cheaper" metal since one is always undervalued relative to the other since world market prices of gold and silver always move. 

There's no such mechanism for bitcoin so the concept doesn't apply. 
That you spend CCs first because they're less money-like than sats says nothing about good/bad money. 

_do bad cars drive(!) out good ones?_ 

No, they coexist; and relative prices adjust

denlillaapan

The case FOR CCs

optimism

I get your point in linked post about demand - I think. Do I get it right that you're saying that `my demand for the harder money is making me spend the weaker money first, because from my perspective I have less desire to hold on to the latter`? 

Ultimately that means that the bad money "driving out" the good money is only valid until it goes to 0? 