WTN Claim Register What people say about We The North, checked one claim at a time
Register › About getting in

We The North addresses

Three published addresses for the same platform. Copy rather than retype, and verify the signature once you are through.

Address 1 hn2paw7zadwkcra3qzv5e4q547i7e5lvxm62cfxqftuqdu7moiu2ceyd.onion
Address 2 hn2paw7zfvndw3dovycegeqmvvnf4pl67b3g2p7pohjlzavloosh73id.onion
Address 3 hn2paw7zrgujyhnt6mgxlt2q6uhgbke4itpqitxhyfbumq3wtnckbuyd.onion

This site publishes the list and does not monitor it. An address that opens is not an address that is genuine, and the check that settles it takes under a minute.

If it loads it is real

The claimIf the address loads the login page, it is the real site
Not true Loading is the one thing a fake does perfectly.

Three questions called one word

Does it load
The weakest sense and the one most people mean. A clone loads. It loads faster than the real platform, because it has no traffic and no defences to run.
Is it current
Whether the address is still in use rather than retired. Better, checkable against a list, and a list is only as good as its source.
Is it genuine
Whether the party answering holds the key it claims. The only question with a definitive answer, and the answer comes from a signature rather than anything visible on the page.

Why the first two mislead

They correlate with the third in ordinary conditions, which is exactly what makes them dangerous. Most of the time a current address that loads is genuine, so the habit of checking only those works most of the time and quietly builds confidence.

It fails precisely in the situation it was meant to protect against, which is when somebody has gone to the trouble of building a convincing clone. A heuristic that works except when attacked is not a defence.

The clearest caseA retired address that starts answering again loads perfectly, looks familiar, and is the clearest example of this failure. Nothing about using it would feel wrong.

What settles it

A signature verified against a fingerprint you established independently. That establishes two things and only two: that whoever signed held a specific private key, and that the signed text is unchanged. Narrow, absolute, and the only thing available that answers the question at all.

The dependency is the fingerprint. A signature checked against a key taken from the page you are checking proves nothing, because the page, the key and the signature all came from the same party and internal consistency is free for a forger. The verifying page covers establishing one properly.

A link somebody sent you

Treat the source as carrying no information at all. A link from a forum you have read for years, a person you trust, or a site that has been right before is exactly as unverified as one from a stranger. Not because those sources are dishonest, but because none of them can prove anything about an address, and the thing that can takes under a minute.