matt
Matt Corallo

10th known contributor to Bitcoin Core. Now Full-Time Open-Source Bitcoin+Lightning Projects at Spiral (Part of Block).

Public Key

npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdp

NIP-05 Address

matt@bitcoin.ninja

NIP-57 Address

matt@bitcoin.ninja

Profile Code

nprofile1qqsr6tj32zrfn7v0pu4aheaytdnnc6rluepq73ndc2tdjzus34gat9qppemhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mp0qy2hwumn8ghj7mn0wd68ytn00p68ytnyv4mz7dgmxf4

Publishing to

nos.lol

nostr.oxtr.dev

relay.snort.social

Author Public Key

npub185h9z5yxn8uc7retm0n6gkm88358lejzparxms5kmy9epr236k2qcswrdp

Show more details

Last Notes

2025-04-02 18:16:20

Since when are funds held with a custodian “self-custody”?
I guess we need a new word for “custody” now that it has absolutely lost all meaning.
https://image.nostr.build/9db6a3b93c3a33f676bbf246c1be102547cd972db5977782cae3479be31b3e6f.jpg

2025-03-30 03:30:39

SFO has had private security, not TSA, this whole time, and while it’s not wildly better, it’s definitely the best security at a major US airport.
#note1dj3…0zc3

2025-03-29 11:37:30

- reply

Executive orders are only allowed to set new policy for the executive branch. They cannot set new law or impact things outside of the executive branch (except by cutting government contracts and the like).

2025-03-24 00:06:25

New favorite energy usage comparison.
https://image.nostr.build/f85e0640d649fbd7c18e619c5aef6c901ce6937412d198506ee4b03f178d29c9.jpg

2025-03-14 02:57:54

Lighting absolutely does not take 5-10 seconds to settle a payment. Looking at payments from one of the largest custodial providers settlements are *way* faster than that most of the time.
Sure, if you’re sending from a shitty node that doesn’t have good pathfinding[1] then it can take a bunch of retries and a while, but, like, don’t do that? Cashu could take 5 seconds if you hit bad Tor relays, but, again, like, don’t do that 🤷‍♂️.
[1] https://lightningdevkit.org/blog/ldk-pathfinding/ #note1ga0…e9ln

2025-03-04 12:50:51

- reply

They may announce some of them, but there’s no authoritative list - I assume if some leave it won’t be announced. Also no idea what the required threshold is.

2025-03-03 21:40:47

This is your regular reminder that the Liquid signers are not public. Storing money in Liquid is “trust whoever Blockstream says you should trust but you don’t get to know who they are”.
Fine for money you are happy losing, but even storing your money in Coinbase is way more sane.

2025-03-01 14:40:00

- reply

We aren’t in ZIRPland any more (tho we may be there soon at the rate the economy is going…)

2025-02-27 13:19:31

Reminder for Bitcoin devs:
When you push code, organized crime is watching.
When you add that dependency, North Korea is trying to comprise its dependencies.
When you leave your laptop unlocked in public, you don’t know who’s gonna hit a few keys.
Stay vigilant. It’s not a lot more work to be careful and avoid dependencies, but it’s a ton of work to clean up after someone loses a billion dollars.

2025-02-26 12:13:39

- reply

Sure, this wasn’t intended to describe new protocols, and indeed there are *many* more spectrums on which protocols should be evaluated. I specifically, however, am somewhat annoyed at protocols trying to call themselves “non-custodial” when they require trusting some operator in some way in order for you to be sure you can get your money back.

2025-02-26 12:11:09

- reply

Right, but specific to BitVM *only* operators can peg-out.

2025-02-25 20:08:34

- reply

The user withdraw is not tied to the operator withdraw at all. The user with draw is just the user atomically swapping bitcoin for bitvm-btc. The operator then withdraws separately to balance their float.

2025-02-25 20:05:35

Trust Models (refer back to this when someone claims their thing is “non-custodial”, note that privacy is a different spectrum)
* Holding Funds On Chain
* Trusting you can get a transaction confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is way higher than the on chain cost (LN)
* Trusting you can get a tree of many transaction confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is way higher than the on chain cost of the whole tree (in-round Ark for high-ish balances, rollups for *very* high balances after some future soft-fork)
^ non-custodial
v custodial
* Trusting you can get a tree of transactions confirmed in some time horizon where your balance is similar to the on chain cost (in-round Ark for moderate balances, rollups for most folks after some future soft fork)
* Trusting 1-of-N with keys (rollups with BitVM)
* Trusting N-of-M to do something honestly once in a TEE (statechains maybe?)
* Trusting N-of-M to do something honestly once (statechains/statechains-on-Ark)
* Trusting N-of-M with keys (Liquid, Fedimint)
* Trusting 1 entity with keys (Cashu, Coinbase, …)

2025-02-24 19:35:08

- reply

Not thinking of one single thing, but there’s plenty of ways fingerprinting different users is likely possible. If you have 10K withdraws per user you can probably cluster the blinded paths many of them are using, add on top features which may identify specific clients and you can probably do pretty well. Obv you can’t tell the difference been any two invoices for different Phoenix (or other wallet with a fixed LSP (set)) wallets, but across wallets I’m skeptical it’s robustly private.

2025-02-24 18:22:14

- reply

Sadly in lightning if you’re doing repeated payments, even with a fresh BOLT 12 each time with blinded paths, in practice you can probably group most outbound payments :/

2025-02-24 12:47:35

- reply

The point is that this is FUD and not true.

2025-02-24 12:26:07

- reply

Indeed

2025-02-24 12:23:19

- reply

This is very much a misread of the spec. #note1ehv…yfwp

2025-02-24 12:22:34

This isn’t specific to BOLT 12 and is really stretching the line on accuracy.
Yes, if you reuse a BOLT 12 across two companies they can compare notes and see that you used the same one (duh!), but it’s not “because you reuse the same public key”, it’s because it’s the same thing!
But, of course, you don’t *have * to do this. Wallets, by default, should generate a fresh BOLT 12 every time they display the receive key (and LDK will every time the wallet asks for a BOLT 12), including fetching a different “offer_issuer_id”.
Ultimately, don’t assume things just based on the name of a field in a spec - the “offer_issuer_id” is a misnomer, LDK actually has a different name for it because of this, and IIRC the spec even says don’t reuse it if you’re a regular end-user wallet! #note197d…uk8f

2025-02-21 21:46:06

- reply

Also apparently the latest round of layoffs doesn’t impact Mozilla Corporation, only Mozilla Foundation (which owns the corporation but doesn’t work on Firefox).

2025-02-21 21:39:32

- reply

Sadly there kinda isn’t one - every other browser is just a Chromium skin with all the Google-pushed crap either neutered or still there. If you’re on a Mac, it’s Firefox or Safari.

2025-02-21 02:41:31

- reply

(For the non-New Yorkers there is no 9 train, yet I just rode it)

2025-02-21 02:39:46

What dimension am I in? https://image.nostr.build/52fe22e5d1f2b464e157a410f0938cb11188a8176482b32372e5dd5d29643713.jpg

2025-02-20 17:17:39

- reply

My understanding was that no one was bothering with that since statecoins-on-Ark was simpler…

2025-02-20 17:17:11

- reply

You can do LN-on-Ark, indeed, which addresses some of the Ark LSP liquidity issues (without the trust model tradeoff), though you still require somewhat more liquidity than lightning natively, which seems pretty expensive.

2025-02-19 18:21:54

- reply

Maybe, but it looks like great UI to me! 😅

2025-02-19 18:06:59

- reply

Try being colorblind, then you won’t even notice it!

2025-02-19 17:16:46

- reply

Depends on if we start building a lot of stuff that ends up building MEVil….

2025-02-19 16:16:32

Over the past few years Bitcoiners went from dismissing Lightning to cheering on custodial solutions. While many of those solutions have great properties and make sense for low-balance wallets, we shouldn’t lose sight of the goal - great non-custodial UX that Bitcoiners actually *want* to use.
Luckily we have the tech for it (now), we just need the motivation and resources to build great wallets using it!
https://spiralbtc.substack.com/p/custodial-solutions-are-not-solutions

2025-02-18 02:41:40

- reply

I believe DEMAND’s work is related/intends to use the protocol, though.

2025-02-17 18:18:30

- reply

Absolutely, certainly wasn’t trying to argue otherwise. Tons of people do things I disapprove of, hell I’ve consistently encouraged Spiral (and others) to fund things I think won’t have a substantial impact (because sometimes I’m wrong, and it’s good to fund people to get them into the ecosystem and see what they build later in any case). My point here was that if we build things that improve things along a single dimension (which I still disagree this actually is) we should be doing so with a goal of later improving other dimensions so that actual net privacy improves. Sadly in this case the only solution to the other issues is decentralized pools which also subsume the value of ecash pool shares!

2025-02-17 18:09:10

- reply

Indeed, OCEAN’s approach leaves a long trail in the DB. I addressed this a bit more in the note below, but I think in practice the (bulk) withdraw you’d do with ecash would end up having similar privacy issues as today’s approach. You obviously can’t withdraw each single sat by itself (the fees would dominate, even on lightning), so you bulk-withdraw in batches. You’d have to have every user have the same bulk-withdraw randomization logic, with fresh BOLT12 (or different ecash mints) to withdraw to each time (otherwise you’d have clear fingerprints in the withdraw batches). And even then I’d bet with enough BOLT 12 blinded paths you’d be able to cluster most withdraws :/.
This just isn’t as simple as you’re thinking. I agree there’s a world where on an extreme margin this could improve privacy, but it’s a really tiny margin and a pool motivated to go look would probably be able to see through almost all of it :/
#nevent1q…slh4

2025-02-17 17:58:12

- reply

Ah, I see the miscommunication there.

2025-02-17 17:57:50

- reply

They’re really not, though. Also important to point out that you can’t “just” withdraw all your tokens piecemeal as the fee to do that (even over lightning) would dominate, and the intermediate hoops through the lightning network plus withdraw steps would almost certainly be a unique fingerprint. I’m quite confident you’d end up with zero additional privacy against a pool that really dug into it. #nevent1q…f2cn

2025-02-17 17:55:36

- reply

I totally understand your argument here but you didn’t address any of my points - (a) this isn’t actually practical because no one would use such a pool, (b) this doesn’t solve the IP-level privacy issues (which are the biggest issues for privacy on a pool by farrrrr!), (c) this doesn’t actually improve payout privacy since there’s a privacy loss when the user goes to (bulk) withdraw (basically the privacy ends up being the same as just doing lightning withdraws from the pool!)

2025-02-17 17:50:59

- reply

> > it removes an entire class of liabilities that need to be tracked. The business owner no longer needs to be concerned with unredeemed shares.
WHAT?! No pool should ever, ever, ever not track the total liabilities in each ecash epoch. Sure, they can *in theory* stop tracking individual shares, but they still need to track the total shares and the shares redeemed to ensure bugs in the ecash system don’t bankrupt them.
> we can do better
Sadly, users want, like, a UI that tells them their hashrate and monitors their devices and such. That should be run locally, on that I assume we agree, but actually building that is the hard part here, not anything related to ecash. The ecash part doesn’t improve complexity here, you move the tracking locally but you still have to build it (and it’s harder to build cause you have to build it to run on the miners end)!

2025-02-17 13:36:42

- reply

Ecash tokens for shares do not materially improve pool privacy #nevent1q…pzqx

2025-02-17 13:35:29

- reply

Privacy issues on pools are almost entirely “what IP is connecting, from where” (as this likely lets you find the physical farm, which is by far the biggest concern with pools). Changing the payout scheme to have more privacy might also seem like it would prevent the pool from knowing the exchange a specific miner uses, but in practice each miner gets a fairly specific amount paid out, so the pool can match payouts with miners. Sure, the miner could go to substantial effort to hide their activities (like taking payout to another ecash mint) but (a) that’s likely to be relatively rare so it’ll stick out anyway and (b) they could do that just as well if the pool just does lightning payouts or even on chain payouts.
I’m not really sure where “simplifies accounting” even comes from, tbh. Accounting for a pool isn’t complicated? You just, like, keep track of a share count for each user. Even with a fancy payout scheme you’d have to do that anyway, if only because users want to see it in a fancy dashboard. So fancy payouts are just added complexity.
Of course pools *should* do payouts in ways that increase payout frequency so that small miners have less outstanding balance with a pool at any time, but making shares ecash tokens is substantially overkill.

2025-02-16 22:47:53

- reply

Oh but you *know* there’s a lot of people who are gonna be entirely outraged at this when they find out.

2025-02-11 19:07:42

- reply

I think you underestimate how good LLMs are.

2025-02-11 02:37:45

- reply

#nevent1q…w0dt

2025-02-11 02:36:52

- reply

I don’t think that’s fair. If I follow a lot of people I might want the top posts from those I follow since I last logged in on top. There are tons of options that aren’t terrible and aren’t just tuned scroll-encouragement.

2025-02-10 20:07:11

- reply

> Most of my Twitter/X feed became stuff I just didn't want to see, and the platform really got in my way in trying to find content I did want to see that I decided to just delete my account.
Anecdotally I’ve heard this kind of thing a lot. I don’t think we have good public stats, though. I’m skeptical they have good stats either, tbh, given the prevalence of fairly convincing AI bots due to LLMs.

2025-02-10 18:38:53

I think people here underestimate just how many users Twitter/X has lost over the last year (not counting AI bots…). Looking back at people who were a major part of The Conversation a few years ago most of them simply don’t post anywhere anymore (or a few do on Bluesky). Turns out a bad algorithm is worse than none.
Nostr isn’t losing the user race, people just stopped posting.

2025-02-09 12:54:26

- reply

And, yea, Elon personally spends *wayy* too much time on Twitter getting egged on by the right-cult. It’s not healthy for him :/

2025-02-09 12:15:02

- reply

It makes mining progress-full, rather than progress-free. Ie the one company with the fastest QC wins all the blocks, rather than proportional to how much faster they are. Also, people always quote the “square root of 256 bit hash” nonsense, but it’s actually square root of the difficulty (in bits).

2025-02-07 23:09:08

- reply

Yea, to be clear BitPay sucks for a ton of reasons. But, it does let me pay for stuff with LN sometimes.

2025-02-07 22:22:06

- reply

I am without KYC. Geoip US/California.

2025-02-07 18:21:57

- reply

#nevent1q…xxhu

2025-02-07 18:15:34

It’s a real shame the US outlawed this starting next year.
Bigger shame the Bitcoin community isn’t constantly beating the drum, too….making it illegal to pay with bitcoin (via a payment processor) without KYC is nuts! #note1k87…nxwv

2025-02-07 18:13:33

- reply

It still makes you select which wallet you’re using as step one (lol what?), but doesn’t push any Bitcoin Cash nonsense anymore. It just shows you a lightning invoice and that’s it (if you select a Lightning wallet).

2025-02-07 17:30:01

As many problems as Newegg has, the fact that they still take BitPay and it takes lightning makes me but there every time. Real Magic Internet Money.

2025-02-07 03:48:08

- reply

No, for air traffic controllers themselves. There’s several lawsuits over it, it was…. Really poorly done.
For NASA I haven’t seen any evidence of any real discrimination and I’d be surprised to learn any different than your claim.

2025-02-07 03:46:54

- reply

Sadly just a lot less overall clarity. Less coherent sentences making substantially less coherent points. People made fun of him eight years ago for this but mostly if you paid attention to politics and the goings-on you knew what he was referencing and he was making coherent arguments (whether you agreed or not). These days it’s much less follow-able.

2025-02-07 02:55:58

- reply

It’s way way way overstated generally and very very likely didn’t contribute at all to the DC crash, but to be fair the FAA’s hiring practices were objectively racist af. They filtered explicitly for people passing a “biographical test” that they sent the answers to black candidates to.

2025-02-06 03:02:02

The feed is:
“Trump and Musk are bypassing all the controls we had in place, they’re literally overthrowing the constitution by ignoring Congress”
“Trump and Musk are saving democracy by throwing out all the unelected officials that actually control the government and installing the will of the people”
Y’all need to chill the fuck out, dear god everyone has lost their damn minds.

2025-01-31 01:55:50

- reply

Another possible outcome is that this normalizes LSPs doing KYC for swaps and totally fucks the ability of Bitcoin-only LSPs to operate without KYC…

2025-01-31 01:22:57

- reply

Taproot assets isn’t really “on bitcoin”, though. Hell, to avoid KYCing with swap providers, it’s probably unlikely to remain “on lightning” if it gets popular at all.

2025-01-30 14:31:46

- reply

$1M for that isn’t financial support, it’s a generous gift. Grants for a year of open source dev are pretty standard at $100K. Even if you double or triple it 1M is still generous.

2025-01-30 14:26:53

- reply

Nah, but when you support someone by wayyyyy overpaying for a product, then that person starts tweeting nasty things about your enemies, I think it’s fair to suggest that the two are close enough that they at least *could* have gotten their facts straight if they wanted to.

2025-01-30 14:10:06

- reply

How is that sus? He *tweeted his exit tax check and Bitcoin holdings*. This isn’t because someone posted about it on Reddit 🤦‍♂️

2025-01-30 11:59:18

- reply

Only post-subsidy

2025-01-30 03:29:48

- reply

Plane crash at the airport in DC, for those who missed it. 60 people on the plane an unknown number on the helicopter it hit. Probably not many alive, if any.

2025-01-30 03:26:21

Holy shit. I mean it was bound to happen eventually but god bless those poor 60 souls at DCA tonight.

2025-01-29 23:14:10

I am once again imploring people to stop quoting “facing XX years” claims unless someone actually filled out the federal sentencing guidelines form and have a realistic quote.
Those numbers are always completely made up, usually by more than 10x!

2025-01-29 17:52:08

- reply

Cool, filed it with the Aussie tax office :).
Also, interesting. Probably not a top destination for ACINQ and high enough that you’re pushing a lot through some small channels (since that node is old from back in the days when 1M sat channels were “big”).
Definitely a point for smarter algos when sending “big” payments (relative to a network neighborhood).

2025-01-29 17:50:02

Roger Ver: posts publicly about how much bitcoin he has
Also Roger: posts his (obviously underpaid) exit tax payment on Twitter
…
Paul Sztorc: it must be Greg’s fault the IRS found out! #note13jl…25qh

2025-01-27 03:31:16

- reply

Except nothing does or will ever bother to support blinded paths outside of BOLT 12. Luckily BOLT 12 has two other important features that users desperately need so wallets that adopt it get a way better UX.

2025-01-24 14:56:28

Underrated advantage of paying in bitcoin - your orders don’t get randomly cancelled due to overzealous anti fraud systems.
As the internet becomes more and more and more bot-ridden, everything ends up with aggressive bot detection that invariably blocks lots of people. This also applies to online shopping, where suddenly some merchants simply block a lot of their potential customers due to chargeback risk. If I pay in bitcoin, they can process the order and not spend money on broken anti-fraud systems.
I’m literally trying to order a damn pan and can’t 🤦‍♂️

2025-01-22 16:31:38

- reply

Sadly I’m not very good at English.

2025-01-22 12:20:09

- reply

The implication of the samurai case (at least the second charge) is that modern self-custody wallets would be illegal. That isn’t just seeking power, that’s seeking to protect Bitcoin.

2025-01-22 01:13:57

- reply

It would be nice, but an executive statement of the charging being an overreach would also be good, and a pardon is implicitly that. I’d rather fight that fight with a more…. Promising defendant tbh.

2025-01-22 01:00:33

The bitcoin community has real political power, it’s time we exercise it.
#FreeSamorai #note1q7d…9v7e

2025-01-19 18:32:12

- reply

Yep

2025-01-08 04:21:16

- reply

Yea, which, how do I decide? Also how do I do so without impacting followers on different relays from seeing my posts?

2025-01-08 04:20:37

- reply

Damus is the only app that’s ever worked well for me. Sadly the spam is basically random words and images from random accounts.

2025-01-08 04:13:00

- reply

I’d take that action.

2025-01-08 04:12:36

Okay, my mentions are now filled with spam. I guess that’s cause I “picked bad relays”? How do I (a normal user who doesn’t have the time to investigate the relay offerings out there) fix this?

2024-12-28 06:47:07

Run a bitcoin payment processor so that normie merchants can accept bitcoin and we can spend bitcoin (which was half the damn point)? Congrats you have to ask for the socials of people paying 🤦‍♂️ #note1vxz…j98n

2024-12-23 09:51:17

- reply

Sadly I don’t recall that being his argument…. I don’t think he’d even considered “sometimes government isn’t just and good” at all until I highlighted the possibility of voters electing someone “bad”.

2024-12-22 23:21:15

- reply

A backdoor is a backdoor whether it’s described in the documentation and public or not.

2024-12-22 22:26:45

- reply

The app description explicitly lists a privacy backdoor for governments? It’s literally the design of the GNU Taler project (to build ecash with a limited backdoor to prevent money laundering/tax evasion).

2024-12-22 16:53:44

I once had a discussion with a GNU Taler dev, who argued with a straight face that the government should have a (limited) backdoor into financial systems despite voters sometimes electing bad people because, and I’m dead serious here, the German voters would never elect someone with as authoritarian tendencies as Trump.
I guess he missed his history lessons…in literally every year of school there lol #note1vhh…jzmn

2024-12-19 05:57:33

- reply

Sure it makes sense, just funny to watch NGU bitcoiners care more about the fed than anything.

2024-12-19 04:18:41

Anyone else find it kinda ironic that the Bitcoin 100k push came after an off-hand comment by the Fed chair, and now Bitcoin is down 5% on Fed chair comments?

2024-12-18 22:27:34

- reply

Tyler from your team made the graphs for me!

2024-12-18 20:42:54

LDK’s new pathfinding tuning is pretty predictive of the real world! https://image.nostr.build/7e94329c4fe010a97736a339b2269b38d6bb55207d394b87e8f68938ff18d525.jpg

2024-12-16 04:19:38

- reply

Yes, I saw your post, I thought it was quite clever! That said, I think the Taproot approach is slightly cleaner - it allows wallets more flexibility (eg they could use a static PQ key for all their addresses, and no one would ever know unless they were used).
In terms of one-time vs larger-signatures, my mental model here is basically this stuff will only be used on the margin. Wallets that upgrade today and that people don’t touch for two decades will be safe, but wallets people sure actively using in five or seven years might use other, newer options for PQC. Thus, a bit worse design is fine, if it makes the solution more bulletproof. Now, that said, maybe that’s indeed an argument for a single-use scheme, just because it’s simpler to implement.

2024-12-15 22:34:27

- reply

I’m told this was in fact a design goal of Taproot, but somehow I wasn’t aware of it. 🤷‍♂️

2024-12-15 22:29:51

Turns out Taproot is great for post-Quantum in Bitcoin. https://groups.google.com/g/bitcoindev/c/8O857bRSVV8

2024-12-15 01:15:50

- reply

Vinny with a bad take? Huh, whod’a thunk it.

2024-12-13 14:48:25

- reply

So disappointing that I’m their rush to scale Bluesky dropped all the decentralized moderation architecture they built. Just embarrassing.

2024-12-11 15:32:19

- reply

Nor that. Taking all the counts and adding up the total maximum sentence for each is not how federal sentencing works (and not just any kind of “in theory the judge could….” kinda way, they can’t do that).

2024-12-11 15:28:49

No, Roger is not facing 109 years in prison. That’s not how federal sentencing works, that’s never how federal sentencing has ever fucking worked. Stop quoting morons who don’t know how things work.

2024-12-11 14:04:53

- reply

Sure, you can just hide the message behind a tap - removes the message from the payments list but users can still see it. Sadly, I think you’re right - and frankly dunno that the messages are worth having 🤷‍♂️

2024-12-11 13:30:51

- reply

Wallets should just not display the message (under a certain threshold?) until the user taps into the transaction. That takes the value away for advertisers but retains the original purpose.

2024-12-11 13:29:12

- reply

The better solution is to just not display the Zap/message under a threshold. That’s what many wallets already do AFAIU. Rejecting money bound for a user sucks, tho, even if it’s tiny, especially since users currently expect that to work.

2024-12-11 13:26:27

- reply

Nah, for travel you need bag structure to put things in their place and have them all stay there. Especially important for clothes to avoid wrinkles.

2024-12-11 13:25:40

- reply

I mean if it has a hard back I’m not sure why collapsible helps? Pushing an empty full suitcase isn’t all that hard if it has four wheels…
But, yea, a proper four wheel suitcase (I’m partial to TravelPro over Away but whatever) is the way to go for actual travel use-cases - sturdy, not annoying cause the sides are always collapsing when you’re trying to put stuff in, hard sides also give structure for where to place items as you add them, etc. But for events…I dunno, if you really want something collapsible, I dunno what’s good, not a lot of competition for such things because they suck for travel.

2024-12-11 05:44:48

- reply

Well see, there’s your problem, you prefer terrible suitcases.