One account, reachable from any of the three

The worry, and where it comes from

The worry is that signing up on one address created something local to that address, so that arriving on a different one means arriving as a stranger. It is a reasonable fear because ordinary life is full of accounts that are tied to a place: a card that works in one shop, a membership that does not travel.

It is also fed by the word mirror, which suggests copies, and copies suggest each having its own version of things.

Why it does not work that way

If the three addresses are routes to one market, then there is one place where accounts live, and the route you arrived by is not part of your identity there. The route carried the request. It did not create anything of its own.

This is not a claim about the market's internals. It follows from what the arrangement is. If arriving by a different address produced a different account, the three would not be mirrors of anything and the word would be misapplied.

What that means concretely

• The same name and the same credentials are the ones you use, whichever route you came by.
• Nothing needs to be created again, registered again or transferred between addresses.
• There is no per address version of your account to keep in step with any other.
• Losing access to one address does not put your account out of reach, which is most of the point of the set existing at all.

What is not shared, and why it looks like the account

You will be asked to sign in again on a route you have not used recently. That is not the account being different. It is the signed in state being per route, which is the subject of the session not being shared.

The two feel identical from the outside. Both present you with a sign in screen. The difference is whether the thing behind the screen is the same object, and it is.

The practical consequence people miss

Because the account is one object, anything that damages it is damaged everywhere at once. A password that has been learned by somebody else is not a problem on one address that you can escape by using another.

That cuts against a belief that comes up surprisingly often: that moving to a different address is a way of getting away from a problem. It is not, for anything that lives in the account, and the study on what switching cannot fix lists the rest.

Why the question is worth answering carefully

A reader who is unsure whether their account travels will avoid using the other two addresses, which means they are holding a set of three and using a set of one. That is the exact failure the whole site keeps circling: the benefit of plurality is only collected by somebody willing to use the other members.

So the answer here is load bearing rather than trivia. It is what makes the second and third address usable rather than theoretical.

What this study cannot tell you

It cannot tell you that any particular address is a genuine route rather than something pretending to be one. That is a different question and no reasoning about equivalence touches it. A string that is not part of the published set is not a route with a shared account behind it, and the section on mistakes is largely about how a reader ends up holding one.

Why the reasoning has to be stated rather than asserted

It would be shorter to write that the account is shared and leave it there. A reader who is worried does not want an assertion, because assertions are exactly what they are afraid of trusting.

Setting out why it follows from the arrangement gives them something they can check against their own understanding rather than against this site's confidence. That is the difference between a page that reassures and a page that equips, and only the second one survives being wrong about something else.

What this study is not. It is not a claim about how the market stores accounts, and nothing here is a report of anything observed inside it.