How a link ages
Every address you will ever see is somewhere in a four stage life. Knowing which stage explains most of what looks like inconsistency between sources.
Why age is the missing variable
People treat an address as either real or fake, which is a category error. Real and fake describe a moment, and addresses move through states. The same string can be genuine, then genuine but retired, then actively hostile, without a single character changing.
That is why two sources can disagree while both being honest. A directory listing an address that stopped working is not lying. It captured a true fact and did not notice the fact expired. Almost every contradiction you will find between link sources is an age difference rather than a dishonesty difference.
The four stages
| Stage | How long | What it looks like | Danger |
|---|---|---|---|
| Made | Minutes | Generated and signed, not yet published anywhere | None, nobody has it |
| Spreading | Weeks to months | Appearing in more places, being copied outward | Low, this is when it is most likely genuine |
| Stale | Months | Still listed widely, no longer in the roster | Moderate, it simply stops working |
| Recycled | Indefinite | Answering again under new ownership | Severe, and it looks exactly like working |
Why nobody notices the transitions
Because none of them are announced and none of them are visible from outside. An address does not change appearance when it leaves the roster. A copy of it sitting in a forum post does not update. The only signal is that it stopped answering, and that signal is identical to an ordinary outage for the first several days.
The practical consequence is that duration is your only discriminator. An address unreachable for an hour is almost certainly having a bad day. One unreachable for a week is probably gone. Most people conclude at the one hour mark, which is why the outage window is where so much damage happens.
Read in order
These four pages work as a sequence, though each stands alone if you only care about one stage.