torzon-links.store
Address record · otw35cxf

The address tied for the most digits

Thirteen digits in 56 characters, or 23.2 percent, against the 18.75 percent an even draw would give. The gap is noise.

Length56 + .onionCorrect for a version 3 address
AlphabetpassOnly a to z and 2 to 7
Shared prefix0 charsNo other address here shares its first character
otw35cxf2rssl23tsvtqjwj32u62q4becl2jmgvekuemptxli7gt5lyd.onion

What the string reports

Computed fields

Full address
otw35cxf2rssl23tsvtqjwj32u62q4becl2jmgvekuemptxli7gt5lyd.onion
Characters before .onion
56
Characters including suffix
62
Alphabet check
pass · no 0, 1, 8 or 9
Letters
43
Digits
13 · 23.2% of the string
Distinct symbols used
28 of 32
Symbols never used
a h n z
Most frequent symbol
t · 5 times
Longest run of one character
2 · s
Opens with the market name
no
Longest prefix shared with another address here
0 · none

What an even spread would actually look like

The alphabet behind these addresses holds 32 symbols, six of which are digits. If every symbol were equally likely, digits would take 18.75 percent of the positions. Over the full set of twelve strings the observed figure is close to that. Over any single string it wanders, and this one wandered upward as far as any address here does.

A four and a half point gap sounds like something. In a sample of 56 it is nothing. The expected number of digits in one address is around ten and a half, and the typical swing either side of that is close to three, so thirteen is comfortably inside the range you would shrug at. Another string in this set landed on five, which is a bigger gap in the other direction, and it is equally uninteresting.

This is the sort of number that gets misused constantly. Somebody notices that an address has more digits than its neighbours, decides that means something about how it was made, and builds a theory. The theory has nothing under it. Every one of these strings came out of the same process, and a process that produces random output produces uneven-looking output. Evenness is what would need explaining.

The reason this site prints digit counts at all is not that they identify anything. It is that they are one of the few properties of a string that can be checked in a second and stated without hedging. A count is a fact. What people do with the fact is where the trouble starts, and the honest position is that a digit count narrows nothing down and confirms nothing.

The three zones of this string

Two digits in the head, six in the middle and two in the final eight. The digits are spread across the string rather than clustered in one region.

ZoneCharactersValueDigits
Head1 to 8otw35cxf2
Middle21 to 40jwj32u62q4becl2jmgve6
Tail49 to 56i7gt5lyd2
Nothing here was measuredEvery field on this page was computed from the characters above. This site never opens an address, so it cannot tell you whether this one loads, and it will not print an uptime figure or a last checked date. Read what this explorer cannot tell you.

Questions

Does a high digit count make an address harder to type?

Slightly easier, if anything. Digits are less prone to visual confusion than letters. The difficulty of typing any 56 character string correctly remains high enough that nobody should try.

What is the digit share across all twelve addresses together?

Close to the flat expectation. That is the useful comparison, because a set of 672 characters smooths out the swings that make individual strings look lopsided.