Talk:AlphaBay

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2016

| url = pwoah7foa6au2pul.onion

Deepdotweb (talk) 07:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a alphabay phishing link: pwaon7b4pmd4ybml.onion (Ask for PIN code and then redirects to the real site to steal people's money) This is the real alphabay link: pwoah7foa6au2pul.onion

Sources for real links: http://www.deepdotweb.com/marketplace-directory/listing/alphabay https://www.reddit.com/r/darknetmarkets/wiki/superlist

People reporting the phishing link: https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkNetMarkets/comments/4a7b1f/warning_alphabay_phishing_link_on_wikipedia/

Fixed Deku-shrub (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Already done Thank you for alerting people to this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Alphabay has relaunched the real url should be listed . Darkwebhistory (talk) 23:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Phishing

The URL has been changed repeatedly by people trying to phish. I've activated pending changes on this page to try and stop this while still allowing IPs to contribute. Note that the most recent edit summary and those by User:Edma996 were deceptive - the current, sourced URL shouldn't be changed. SmartSE (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers Deku-shrub (talk) 21:54, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

 Question: Why the <nowiki> tags on the URL? NMaia (talk) 18:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Removal of defunct URL

Now that the site is defunct, would it make sense to remove the URL? It's a _target for phishing, at least in my opinion. It's not necessary, and it doesn't improve the article much. Codyorb (talk) 00:03, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Question of reliability of refs for relaunched URL

The refs used to verify the current iteration of the site's URL look shady as hell, to put it bluntly. I haven't visited the sites myself to doublecheck them due to this, but from attempting to Google the names of the sites, I've come up with nothing that would indicate that they are reliable sources, which leads to the concern that the link they indicate is a phishing link. Is there no better refs that provide the correct url? I've looked, and found nothing reliable. Waxworker (talk) 08:48, 15 October 2021 (UTC)

Since DeepDotWeb is no more, we may be hard pressed to find any reliable (as per WP:RS) sources that even publish the onion link. Dark.fail is self-published, so we can't use it either. Somers-all-the-time (talk) 19:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on new claims related to relaunch

I reverted the most recent change by @Darkwebhistory: (link follows this text) to open up a more specific discussion on what claims that user finds without references. Although I wouldn't be surprised that something I wrote needs improvement, I do think most of it was constructive and should stay in the article. [1]Somers-all-the-time (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

With AlphaBay's relaunch, there also needs to be some discussion on how to structure the article because currently there are issues relating to tense and also to information relating to the first incarnation that don't necessarily hold true now. Maybe we could take some inspiration from the Silk Road article, what with its relaunch? Somers-all-the-time (talk) 16:48, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Somers-all-the-time: I think the issue here is the last sentence " This has led to loose speculation that there is a connection between the site operators and the governments of these nations". It took me 4 hours but i finally found the interview I was going to cite to add to the discussion. "Interview With AlphaBay Market Admin (deepdotweb)". There has always been Russian government speculation, but given the facts and actual history that hasn't proven true. Alpha02 was actually a Canadian. I think we should keep it simple and stick to facts :) Darkwebhistory (talk) 00:54, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

source for onion

@Deku-shrub: Do you know if darknetlive is a reliable source for onion addresses like the one added here? Can't say I've seen it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Opinion yes, however this needs to be proven with other 3rd parties describing it as such Deku-shrub (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites:Darknetlive is a valid source for links. But the best and current source would be . The current admin is active on this forum daily and has long since been a credible source.I wouldnt know how to cite it as it is an .onion. Darkwebhistory (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Removed darknetlive as a reference in the article because the archive url itself was causing an error with the CS1 citation. Was not aware it was subject to active debate, feel free to replace it if desired. WhichUserAmI? message me 04:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Onion URL vandalism

There appears to be conflict regarding the correct URL for the marketplace itself. I had previously set the URL to the current, valid and correct Onion URL, however it was reverted to an invalid link that does not return any page. Please refrain from making unsourced edits to the URL in the future, obfuscating important details. WhichUserAmI? message me 16:59, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have raised the concern that the link added by Chimney Sweepa here is a phishing link - I have removed the url outright until consensus is reached here, as pointing readers to a malicious link is a concern. @Chimney Sweepa, WhichUserAmI, and Darkwebhistory: Pinging involved editors for their input. Chimney Sweepa, can you elaborate on why you replaced the existing url sourced from Darknetlive to Darknetstats? Waxworker (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Multiple editors have not raised concern over it, if you check the history multiple editors AGREED with the link that I was reverting back to, which I clearly stated in my last edit, but this dude "WhichUserAmI" is the one currently vandalizing switching it to something else. These links were currently listed on here for a few weeks without any interference because a general consensus agreed to it. The reason it possibly didn't return any page because the market was down, which happens practically daily. Darknet markets are not stable at all. Consistently getting DDOSed and bad connections. Darkwebhistory and WhichUserAmI are both new accounts with not very many edits, so it's a little suspicious that they're consistently fighting the links everyone else agreed on. Moderators already came in once before, and stated to leave the links that I was reverting to until people could come to a different consensus through the talk page but instead of doing that like they said, these dudes are just vandalizing changing it themselves. Whatever consensus everyone comes to, i'll agree with, but these are randoms just vandalizing the page. @Waxworker: Chimney Sweepa (talk) 17:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Sonnettie, WhichUserAmI, Darkwebhistory, and multiple IPs have raised concerns about the accuracy of the url sourced from Darknetstats. @Chimney Sweepa:, can you elaborate on why you changed the url? Darknetlive seems like a better source (although self-published), and was long-standing until it was changed. From what I can tell, no moderators have been involved in reverting changes of the URL - CycloneYoris, Throast, and Philroc are pending changes reviewers, and likely reverted the URL changes by IPs as they were unsourced changes. Waxworker (talk) 18:00, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't the one who initially changed it, I just saw people changing it to something else so doing my Wikipedia duty trying to combat anti-vandalism. General consensus like I said from majority of users were agreed on that, and only a few dudes here and there trying to swap it to something else. I did think there were mods involved but thanks for the clarification. From what I can tell, all those sites are self-published sources and really hearsay. I did hear/see complaints about darknetstats.com, and that it was phishing and why generally everyone agreed on switching to another source. But again, mostly speculation as these are all self-published sources. @Waxworker Chimney Sweepa (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chimney Sweepa: The first time the URL was listed as "alphabayatd5nyqwtsziqf4l2boe35a6s2pj7bsd3rjbrak4dt7mzwad" rather than "alphabay522szl32u4ci5e3iokdsyth56ei7rwngr2wm7i5jo54j2eid" was in your edit from the 12th of July, per the WikiBlame results here. Thus far, there is no consensus on the talk page for the URL sourced from Darknetstats, and I see no indication of "majority of users were agreed" as multiple people have reverted your change of the URL. While self-published, Darknetlive and dark.fail both contradict the url given by Darknetstats, and 'Darknetstats.live' seems rather unreliable. Waxworker (talk) 18:33, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Weird since I was just backing up someone elses edits so not sure exactly what the reasoning is for that, however, the "indication" of users agreeing was the edit messages people were leaving while updating the page. If you go through the history and read everyone's edits from the last month or two you'll see about 3-5 people were for leaving those links until discussed further in talk page, and about 2-3 against. So that's why I used the term majority although it's definitely two different sides agreeing on different things here. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

I know that I was not called on to explain myself, but I would like to add some important explanatory information. The URL that I contributed was published by a popular Youtuber specializing in cybersecurity and technical analysis who goes by the name Seytonic. It was featured in a video titled, "AlphaBay is taking over the dark web... again", and can be seen about two minutes and twenty five seconds into the video. I carefully transcribed the URL from the video and posted it, along with a valid source, after verifying that it was a valid and correct URL. While it is true that darknet URLs do change somewhat frequently, this is indeed the current, correct URL for the AlphaBay Market and. if any URLs are to be listed, this is the one it should be until it changes again. @Waxworker WhichUserAmI? message me 18:26, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Youtubers would also be considered self-published sources. I've also worked on other Wikipedia pages mostly cyber-crime and hacking related, in which Seytonic got so many things wrong. So i'm not necessarily sure that verify's the link. Also just checked out the video and he also has the other alphabay link in the video. So again, not sure exactly what's guaranteed but all our references are self published sources which makes it more difficult to verify the sources. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:USERG or not, the the fact of the matter is the URL you are attempting to publish is, at the very least, deprecated, and may potentially be malicious at this point. The URL I posted, featured in Seytonic's video is live and points directly to the AlphaBay marketplace. Your feverent defense of a link that does not seem to direct to any useful website makes me begin to question your motive behind having it in the public domain. WhichUserAmI? message me 21:27, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Lol this isn't a feverent defense, this is a discussion on the talk page which is the entire point. Also that "link" that you sent has been down multiple times as well, and the other link is working on and off as well. So your only defense of "the link you had was offline" is a bad one. Also ironic that you say i'm defending this link hard, when you're claiming you saw a link in a video of a YouTuber and are so convinced it's the real one that you run to Wikipedia to change it and then argue with anyone who believes the opposite. Awfully weird. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 22:14, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

At this point, due to the nature of the dark web and Wikipedia themselves, I am beginning to feel it may be too difficult to accurately maintain the URL on the article without constant debate. Therefore I believe the article should remain how it is now, and shall not contain a URL unless a more permanent one is established in the future for civility's sake.

Source: Every single discussion on this talk page that has been around for six years relates to whether or not the URL is a scam, or whether the source of the URL is valid and/or malicious.WhichUserAmI 02:44, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this is the best option now. None of the sites mentioned as sources for the link are reliable sources and unless there is one mentioned somewhere in one, we shouldn't be including the URL. The risk of us including a phishing URL is greater than us having none at all. SmartSE (talk) 13:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that dark.fail may be usable as a source for the URL - while the site is self-published, multiple articles from Vice quote the operator of the site in multiple articles about darkweb markets, calling them a "darknet researcher" here, a "darkweb journalist" here, and a "cybersecurity analyst" here. This seems to indicate credibility to me, as Vice has quoted them several times as an expert on the subject of darkweb markets, and the latter ref discusses the site itself (although in passing), stating that it "publishes a verified list of all current darknet markets". If others think dark.fail seems unsuitable and no better source can be found, I agree that listing no URL is best to avoid phishing. Waxworker (talk) 16:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

The authenticity of Vice itself as a trustworthy news source could undoubtedly be called into question, but I personally am not opposed to using dark.fail as a source. Three separate articles, even if two of them are from the same author, are certainly evidence supporting dark.fail's reliability.

In fact, I actually support the change, due to the AlphaBay market URL being the ***54j2eid.onion I had originally supported keeping. However, if anything arises and dark.fail no longer seems reliable or trustworthy, no URL should, in my opinion, definitely be a next step for users' safety and civility. WhichUserAmI 05:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that we should just leave the link empty to protect users because we will never be able to fully agree on a source or have an accurate link source since that's just the nature of the Darknet. According to the following, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources ; dark.fail would not be considered a reliable source and Vice News is also described as "There is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications." so it's pretty difficult. I say just leave the link off personally. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 06:09, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

@Chimney Sweepa: Why did you re-add an onion URL? In this discussion you said that you agreed to leaving it blank. Waxworker (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Someone else said they will never agree with not having a link there which kind of messed up our agreement so figured I'd offer an alternative, if you didn't like it, and removed it like you did, then there's still no argument from me Chimney Sweepa (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chimney Sweepa: & @Waxworker: 1. There is no alternative link at all, there is only 1 .onion and 1 .i2p link. I have layed out how to look and check if a link is bogus or not. I have brought factual proof!! It baffles me how journalist , researchers and thousands and thousands of people can find the correct link, yet we as Wikipedia editors can not come to an agreement . It is really killing the page as a whole because there is more to add to the over all wiki page not just the onion debate. Has no other editor active in these talks even try to validate signatures that display the onion? I feel @Chimney Sweepa: edits have been disingenuous. Nothing that has been said has been factual or brought any kinds of proof. Also we do not know if dark.fail is self published but we do know that the news, world law enforcement agencies ,every day people use that site as one of many to check for actual links. Anyone trying to disclaim that as a fact either has no idea or has done no research on the subject or just lying to get phishing links up and poison the wiki page as a whole. Also I would like to add every wikipedia page that talks about the darknet and/or markets /sub culture has the correct onion link there posted. Why is it that the editors not checked for them selfs? It seems people are not researching the facts and merely just making changes on a whim. How is this all possible?!? Darkwebhistory (talk) 22:34, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Love the shade bro, you linked websites and articles that are listed as non-trusted or unknown trusted sources to the Official Wikipedia rulebook, and you ignored that and kept sourcing them. That's the issue with Darknet markets, most of the "sources" and "links" used to verify darknet links are not acceptable by Wikipedia standards. If you edited for more than two months you might know that. I love that you claim you're writing a book on the subject as if that makes you an ultimate end-all be-all know-all professional on the subject matter when it doesn't. You're only arguing for your own ego and clout which doesn't benefit the Wikipedia community at all. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Chimney Sweepa: I totally get it! Why muddle the issue with facts? am I right? So researching your claims on a rule book in a better effort to get all this sorted. According to WP:USESPS self published sources are allowed and often used.

Also according to WP:Pillars Wikipedia has no firm rules.Amazing what you find when you do the work and research. Darkwebhistory (talk) 21:31, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No firm rules? Maybe you should read the articles I linked way earlier in this thread.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Reliable_sources https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources Chimney Sweepa (talk) 01:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Admin note: I have fully protected the article for 2 days because of the edit warring. Please be aware that edit warring is against Wikipedia rules and can result in a block. I hope that in the 2 days time you all can work out a consensus here at the talk page, perhaps by setting up a more organized discussion clarifying who wants to use what link and why. At the end of the full protection, it may be necessary to restore either the pre-existing Pending Change protection (which wasn't accomplishing much) or to install semi-protection. If protection looks necessary, you can ping me or request protection at RFPP. -- MelanieN (talk) 23:58, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, slipped past me. I also agree it should remain blank, have we reached a WP:CONSENSUS on this? WhichUserAmI 06:43, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree we should leave it blank. Sounds good to me. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 06:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I will have to disagree. Since we have a great deal on confusion on what to trust and what not to trust, not only is there an issue with the url but also on what to cite. Currently working on my points on why we should keep the URl (after proven to be factual) and talk about what is acceptable to cite for general dark net wiki's. It will go over a lot of points that seem to be missing. I will post here in the talk in a few when I am finished. Believe it or not, I am currently writing a book on Alphabay and have been researching this very topic for over 5+ yr's. Thank you, I will have my post up shortly. Darkwebhistory (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Case for allowing Dark.Fail, Darknetlive & Dread for citing + Locking down the real onion.

Hello ! So it seems to me there has be some confusion on what site?s to trust and why to even have the proper url up. I have spent the day researching and gathering information to best explain my case. I made sure that I cite and use only trusted such as The New York Times Vice News Wired Magazine Bitcoin.com Bleeping Computer . I will also cite professional Cyber security researchers such as flashpoint,digitalshadows, and darkowl . I will also briefly go over Pretty Good Privacy aka PGP and Phishing . The Darknet & Darknet marketis a pretty tricky & fascinating corner of the internet .It is important that there is a basic understanding of how one goes about it and getting real and factual information for cites or just writing about it in general .

Let?s start with Pretty Good Privacy . How does one verify news, or websites or places when everyone is anonymous ? This is how it is done! When a new market comes online or a user trying to prove identity, they will often give out their public pgp key. The public pgp key is given out so that the community can check ,verify signatures. User claiming identity will sign messages with pgp keys to prove they are the person they say they are. So when alphabay relaunched cyber security researchers & the community would check the pgp to makes sure this user is actually who they say they are. . Those are just examples, I believe Vice News& Wired Magazine already have cite?s on the main page.

I think a central piece of this whole corner of the internet, especially for journalist , cyber security researchers and overall users is Dread (forum). After DeepDotWeb Dread became the ?go to? source for all Darknet ..Dread (forum) is where the DarkNet joournlist get news from . It?s where all the hacks happen .Also where journalist Verify onions and signatures .It?s pretty important and a big piece of this [Darknet]] subculture, It should be used to verify and cite if possible.

The next site I would like to talk about and why it is important is Dark.fail ..

There has been a good bit of debate as to why this site should be aloud to be used or cited as a source. As I mentioned before there is a very big problem with Phishing , as we can all tell :) The reason why this site has been a main stay for so long as it has a built in pgp tool for the user or journalist to check if the link you are on is the right one . I don?t want to double cite but in the prior links also mention they are a credible source .

The last and 3rd source would be Darknetlive. In the New York Times link I cited & the Bitcoin.com link I cited have they also said darknetlive is a credible source. But Vice News Does aswell .

I think the main reason all 3 are trust worthy sites is because they all 1. List market public keys 2.They have all share the proper URL 3. They all have been vetted by the community, cyber security researchers & journalist and produce valid signatures. Fun fact even the (Northern California Illicit Digital Economy Task Force) has a valid account on dread they maintain & verified by PGP. So Even the police trust?s them as valid sources of information.

I think these 3 source's should be allowed as reference and citing . I also believe the onion should be restored ! After multiple User?s verify the onion is legit threw pgp signature.

After verifying on Dread! /d/AlphaBay, verifying on dark.fail & on Darknetlive . All 3 signatures come back clean to show the onion i added is the True onion for alphabay. With all the phishing it will cause more harm than good just removing it.

Thank you for the time . I wanted to clean up something?s and make everything pretty to lay out my case, due to time constraints. I will just post it, Fix my typos on this talk later. Darkwebhistory (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I purpose allowing to cite Darknetlive, Dark.fail and Dread (forum). People keep removing them, trying to discredit the sites then using that for arguments to change the URL to a phishing url. There is literally a person changing the url and saying they saw the real link on "Youtube". I also purpose to bringing the correct onion back ending with "i5jo54j2eid.onion" As that is the real onion that checks out all pgp validation and signatures, and frankly the real onion. Once we agree that we can cite those 3 site's then the url point becomes moot. Also allowing darknetlive to be cited allows for adding sections wiki. Talking about blueleaks & Pandora Papers and how it relates to Alphabay. Darkwebhistory (talk) 05:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I am unclear what you are proposing. It would be better if you added some proposed text and we can discuss it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jtbobwaysf (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus regarding onion URL

@Darkwebhistory, WhichUserAmI, Smartse, and MelanieN: Pinging involved editors for their input, as well as MelanieN for her input regarding the edit warring. @Chimney Sweepa:, why did you re-add an onion URL again after agreeing to leave it blank? After you were reverted on August 1st, you said that you had "no argument" with re-removing the URL if it was objected to. "You guys want to come to a consensus but can't make a decision so putting it for the time being" doesn't seem like a good reason to re-add it to me, as the discussion seems to lean towards leaving no URL at all due to concerns of phishing, and nobody has agreed with sourcing the URL from 'darknetstats.live' specficially. Waxworker (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

@Waxworker: Thank you this is much needed. I just want to comment on @Chimney Sweepa: Link to darknetstats.live. I find it frustrating that this editor is shooting down 3 main sites that would put this issue to rest. According to wayback machine darknetstats.live has only1 capture dating back to july-18-2022 vs darknetlive which has 5 years of data and captures & dark.fail having 4 1/2 years of captures and data. Now there is a site Darknetstats.com That does displays the correct onion ending with "ngr2wm7i5jo54j2eid.onion" but i believe it can not be cited due to concerns of Yellow journalism. I am of the belief we should Should agree on the onion and keep it up and locked and admin protected. I say this because if alphabay was to ever get hacked or busted again, we are going to need the real onion to verify.I believe I have layed out my case on what we should trust and tried to back that up with actual proof. Darkwebhistory (talk) 14:57, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I think just limiting it to the archive of https://dark.fail/ makes sense. it's the one security researchers tend to use and it has 4 years of history: https://web.archive.org/web/20220716083609/https://dark.fail/

the ngr2wm7i5jo54j2eid is indeed the real one, the others spread by @Chimney Sweepa aka @Jimmnycricketjt123 are most likely phishing links. Cononsense (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Very well :) I believe we have reached a consensus. I will go ahead and change the onion the the agreed link and cite dark.fail. I believe we should lock down the URL and if there are any changes we can make a section in the talk. Darkwebhistory (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@@Waxworker: , @Cononsense:. Now that we have established the correct onion, I have noticed on the alphabay articles in all other languages all have phishing links.How Can we fix this? Darkwebhistory (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

References

Dark.fail is no longer reliable either as their canary ran out which means dark.fail operator could most likely be under duress or raided. These aren’t phishing links, they’re verified links on multiple sources. The links also work fine and are easily verified with PGP. Chimney Sweepa (talk) 20:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

AB v2 is gone

This article should be updated to reflect that the relaunched Alphabay has ceased operations though I'm not sure how to do this as I can find no reliable source. 212.112.148.173 (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

External link

@Rhododendrites: you reverted to remove the onion link posted by GhostDrop (talk · contribs) stating "Wikipedia's approach to onion links is they have to be accompanied by an independent reliable source". Im curious, do we have an onion link policy that is different from WP:EL? I could not find anything at EL nor at WP:URL, and I would guess that URL would be more applicable here. I haven't seen in the past that we need a WP:RS to list a url. Thanks Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:18, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: To be clear, GhostDrop didn't add a url. They just added an unsourced statement that the site is back up somewhere. I used the undo to also remove the onion links someone else added at some point. As for why, there have been multiple discussions in the past, which I don't have ready to hand at the moment. The problem is unlike a standard domain, there is no registrar connecting it with a specific entity. If wikipedia.org is hijacked somehow, there's a person/organization tied to the original registration who can serve as an authority to say "yes it was hijacked" and the registrar/host can act accordingly. There's no central service connecting specific people/organizations with onion links. There are obvious reasons for that inherent to the nature of Tor, but it means that if an onion link is hijacked (and they often are) or a new service pops up with the name of an old one, there's no central authority to say it was/wasn't hijacked or is/isn't the same service. The risk of scams is much, much higher and thus poses too big a security risk to our readers to allow anyone to add an onion link without a reliable source accompanying it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

@Jtbobwaysf: fixing ping — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:41, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds logical. I didnt know these details. Agree with your position now that I understand it. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 05:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Hey I want to be the return of alpha bay in the good side 105.113.71.214 (talk) 14:33, 10 March 2024 (UTC)