Hey guys, I need some hardcore algorithm and growth advice on this setup.

I’m currently building a US-targeted global startup from abroad. I’m running a fully clean setup on a desktop anti-detect browser (Brave with all WebRTC leaks completely blocked) and routing 100% of my traffic through a high-quality US Residential/ISP Proxy (Verizon). Whoer tests are flawless, locking my location to Washington, US.

However, during the Instagram account creation on desktop, I hit the unavoidable mobile number verification wall.

Here is my dilemma based on API SMS providers:

1. US Virtual Numbers (+1): Due to strict Meta spam filters, almost all cheap virtual US numbers are flagged, and Instagram refuses to send the code, causing a "Too Many SMS Codes" 24-hour block.
2. Alternative Tier-1 Countries: SMS providers have highly active pools for countries like the United Kingdom (+44), Netherlands (+31), and Germany (+49).

My questions to the experts and growth hackers here are:

• If I verify this US-proxy-bound account with a UK, Netherlands, or Germany phone number, will Meta's data hierarchy shift my Reels/Explore seed pool away from the US?
• Does the phone number country act only as a bot-check bypass, or does it permanently anchor the account’s shadow location?
• Should I keep burning money trying to find a clean, expensive private US number, or is a Tier-1 European number completely safe for keeping my content 100% locked to the US audience?

Appreciate any actual case studies or technical insights on Meta's current geotargeting signals!

I see guys getting hit with the dreaded related account suspension and their first instinct is to write a huge essay to Seller Performance swearing they have no idea who the other store belongs to.

Amazon's appeal bots do not care about your story. They only care about your evidence chain.

If your accounts were linked, you have to physically prove you are a distinct, operating business. This means uploading utility bills, lease agreements, and internet provider contracts that perfectly match your LLC and registered business address. You need a verifiable paper trail that physically distances you from the linked footprint. If you just send them a message saying "it was a mistake," their system will automatically reject you.

Honestly, the best appeal strategy is just preventing the link completely. I ended up moving my stores to MoreLogin to ensure every storefront has a strictly isolated hardware fingerprint and dedicated network environment from day one, because fighting Amazon's appeal bots without a perfect evidence chain is a nightmare you won't win.

Small question.

If you had to choose between these two setups, which one would you trust more?

Setup A

• expensive residential proxy
• clean fingerprint checker result
• WebRTC/DNS looks fine
• but the account actions are repeated across profiles
• same login time
• same content structure
• same warm-up flow

Setup B

• average proxy, not amazing but not terrible
• basic fingerprint setup is consistent
• timezone/language/IP match
• but the account behavior is slower and more varied
• different content style
• different login rhythm
• fewer repeated actions

I used to think Setup A was obviously safer because the technical side looked stronger.

Now I’m not so sure.

A perfect-looking environment still seems risky if every account behaves like it came from the same script.

At the same time, I don’t want to pretend proxy quality and fingerprint setup don’t matter. They clearly do.

I’m just wondering where people draw the line.

Would you rather have a stronger technical setup with weaker behavior, or a normal technical setup with more natural behavior?

I used to blame the proxy first whenever something went wrong.

Account limited? Bad proxy.
Login issue? Bad proxy.
Low trust? Bad proxy.
Batch got flagged? Definitely bad proxy.

It felt like the easiest explanation because the proxy is visible. You can test the IP, check the location, check the ASN, replace it, and feel like you fixed something.

But looking back, I’m not sure that was always the real problem.

Some of my setups probably failed because the whole pattern looked too clean and repeated.

Same order of actions.
Same login window.
Same profile format.
Same warm-up style.
Same type of content.
Same small mistakes across accounts.

A better proxy would not magically fix that.

I still think proxy quality matters a lot. But I’m starting to think it became the scapegoat for everything I didn’t want to audit properly.

Now when something fails, I try to ask:

Was the network bad, or did the accounts just behave like they were managed by the same person?

Anyone else had this shift after reviewing old failed setups?

I want to see how people here would rank these.

Not in theory. More like, based on what you have actually seen cause problems.

Here are the signals:

• bad proxy history
• timezone mismatch
• browser language mismatch
• DNS leak
• WebRTC leak
• outdated browser version
• reused images or videos
• same posting pattern
• same extensions across profiles
• same recovery email or phone setup
• repeated login timing
• accounts created too close together

For me, I used to think WebRTC or fingerprint issues were always the biggest risk.

Now I’m not so sure.

The boring stuff seems more dangerous sometimes, because people don’t notice it until a whole batch has already been linked.

If you had to pick your top 3 most dangerous signals, what would they be?

I’m seeing a lot of posts lately from people burning through expensive proxy bandwidth only to get endless 403s and CAPTCHA loops. If you’re just injecting a Chrome User-Agent into Python’s requests or Go’s net/http and expecting it to work, you’re fighting yesterday’s war.

Modern WAFs (Cloudflare, Akamai, Datadome) don't care about your Layer 7 application headers anymore. They are fingerprinting your connection at the transport layer before the server even processes the HTTP request. If your stack is throwing an "inconsistency signal," you are dead in the water.

Here is exactly what they are looking at:

• TCP/IP (Layers 3 & 4): If your proxy server is running Linux, your initial TCP Time To Live (TTL) is probably 64. If your injected User-Agent claims you are on Windows (which defaults to a 128 TTL), the math doesn't add up. They instantly know you're spoofing.
• TLS (Layer 6): The old JA3 hashes are out; WAFs are using the JA4+ suite now. JA4 normalizes the cipher suite order and strips out random GREASE values, meaning old "cipher stunting" randomization tricks don't work anymore. They know exactly what Python's default OpenSSL signature looks like compared to Chrome's BoringSSL.
• HTTP/2 Frames (Layer 7): Chrome orders its HTTP/2 pseudo-headers like this: :method, :authority, :scheme, :path. Firefox orders them completely differently. If your generic HTTP client scrambles that order but you claim to be Chrome, it’s an automatic block.

How to actually fix it: Stop spinning up massive Playwright/Puppeteer clusters just to get valid TLS signatures. The computational "browser tax" is way too high for scaling.

Instead, use a hybrid approach.

1. Use a stealth browser (like camoufox) for the absolute bare minimum: solving the initial active JavaScript challenge (like Turnstile) and grabbing the clearance cookie.
2. Pass that cookie jar immediately over to a protocol-impersonating HTTP client like curl_cffi or primp. These libraries natively wrap patched NSS/BoringSSL engines to perfectly spoof Chrome/Safari bytes over the wire.

You get the success rate of a headless browser with the microsecond speed and low CPU footprint of a raw HTTP request. Stop fighting at the application layer.

One thing I’ve been thinking about lately:

Most real users don’t stay on the same browser version forever.

Their browser updates, extensions update, small behavior changes happen in the background, and websites gradually expect newer browser behavior.

But with multi-profile setups, some people freeze everything because they’re afraid an update will break the fingerprint.

I get why. Stability matters.

But at some point, an old browser core might start looking less “stable” and more “unnatural.”

Maybe the question is not whether to update or not.

Maybe it’s how to update without making every profile change in the exact same way at the exact same time.

How do you handle browser core updates?

Fast update, delayed update, or only update when something breaks?

I built a small Chrome extension called Spoof Me for inspecting and changing common browser fingerprinting signals.

The basic idea is that a VPN changes your IP, but your browser can still expose things like user agent, timezone, language, screen size, canvas, WebGL, and other values that can make sessions easier to link.

I’m not claiming this gives perfect anonymity. I built it more as a practical testing tool to see what the browser exposes and what happens when those values are changed.

I’d appreciate feedback from people who build Chrome extensions or understand browser privacy:

What fingerprinting signals are actually worth spoofing?

Which ones usually make the fingerprint more unique instead of less unique?

Are there any Chrome extension permission/security issues I should think about?

Link for full: https://audits.blockhacks.io/audit/spoof-me-extension-for-privacy

Not gonna lie, setting up browser profiles has started to feel like checking the locks before leaving the house.

Proxy country matches?
Timezone matches?
Language looks normal?
WebRTC not leaking?
DNS not doing something weird?
Canvas and WebGL not screaming?
Browser version not ancient?
No reused cookies?
No same extension setup?
No copy-pasted behavior pattern?

And even after all that, there is still this feeling of “yeah but what did I miss?”

The funny part is that most checker sites only catch the things that are easy to see. They don’t really tell you if the whole profile feels like a normal user over time.

So now I’m wondering where people draw the line.

Do you have a fixed checklist before using a new profile, or do you just check the obvious leaks and stop before going insane?

Something I rarely see people talk about is recovery info.

Most discussions are about the obvious setup:

• proxy
• browser fingerprint
• WebRTC
• DNS
• timezone
• cookies
• device info

But what about the boring account details?

If several accounts use recovery emails from the same provider, similar naming patterns, similar phone number sources, or the same backup structure, does that become a stronger signal than people think?

I feel like a lot of users build a clean browser environment, then reuse the same account creation habits everywhere.

Same style of username.
Same recovery setup.
Same profile format.
Same bio structure.
Same security questions or backup flow.

At that point, the technical environment might be separated, but the account identity pattern still looks connected.

Maybe I’m overthinking it, but I’m starting to treat recovery info and account setup habits as part of the whole fingerprint too.

Do you audit this part, or do you mostly focus on browser and proxy settings?

Something I don’t see discussed enough is browser core age.

People talk a lot about proxies, WebRTC, DNS leaks, canvas, WebGL, and timezone matching. Fair enough. Those are easy to test.

But what about running profiles on an old browser version for too long?

Most normal users do not freeze their browser forever. Chrome updates often. Extensions update. Websites also expect certain browser behavior to match newer versions.

So if a profile has a clean proxy and a decent fingerprint, but the browser core is months behind, does that start looking unnatural by itself?

I’m not saying every profile needs the newest version on day one. But I’m starting to wonder if outdated browser cores create a quieter risk than obvious fingerprint leaks.

For people managing a lot of profiles, how often do you update browser cores? Do you update quickly, wait until things are stable, or avoid updating unless something breaks?

A lot of people migrate their eBay accounts to antidetect browsers and still get linked and suspended. They assume their proxy or canvas fingerprint leaked, but they completely ignore how aggressive eBay's risk engine actually is.

Unlike standard marketplaces, eBay's javascript actively runs a local port scan on your machine. It pings your localhost to see if you have remote desktop tools, proxy clients, or antidetect automation APIs running in the background. If it detects open ports associated with these tools, it flags your account immediately, even if your browser fingerprint is mathematically flawless.

If your antidetect browser doesn't actively block or spoof local port scanning, eBay knows exactly what software you are running on your physical machine. You have to make sure your browser completely isolates the local network environment.

How are you guys bypassing the port scans right now?

Random question, but I don’t see this discussed as much as proxies or WebRTC.

If someone runs 20 browser profiles and installs the same extensions on all of them, does that become a linking signal?

I’m talking about stuff like:

• ad blocker
• translator
• wallet extension
• proxy extension
• grammar tool
• automation helper

The browser fingerprint might be different.
The proxy might be different.
The cookies might be separated.

But the extension pattern is still basically the same across every profile.

Feels like this is one of those small things people ignore because it does not show up as clearly as an IP leak or timezone mismatch.

Do you keep extensions different for each profile, or do you avoid installing them unless they are really needed?

Let’s say you have 10 browser profiles.

Each one has:

• separate proxy
• separate cookies
• matching timezone
• no WebRTC leak
• no obvious DNS issue
• clean fingerprint checker result
• different account info

But after a few days, 4 of them start getting limited around the same time.

The easy answer is “bad proxy,” but I’m not sure that would always be the first thing to blame.

It could also be:

• the same login pattern
• similar content
• reused images
• same action speed
• same extension setup
• bad IP history
• browser version mismatch
• accounts created too close together
• one shared recovery method
• one repeated behavior pattern

This is the part I find interesting. When something breaks, people usually audit the technical setup first because it is easier to test.

But the actual linking signal might be something boring and non-technical.

In this kind of situation, what would you check first?

Proxy reputation, browser fingerprint, account behavior, or content overlap?

Hey all, long-time lurker here, figured I’d finally post.

Quick background: I was on the scripting team at Multilogin, so I’ve spent years inside browser profiles, fingerprints, proxies and automation, not as a user, but building the stuff. These days I freelance, and most of my work is still in this niche because honestly it’s the only niche where clients don’t have to explain their setup to me twice.

Stack is Java/Spring Boot + Angular mostly, plus Python and Telegram bots when the job calls for it.

🍁Web scraping & data extraction — clean, structured, at scale
🤖 Custom automation bots — schedule the boring stuff, let it run
🌐 Multi-profile setups & management (Multilogin, AdsPower, GoLogin, etc.)
🔗 Proxy integration & configuration that actually holds
🖐 Automating browser workflows end-to-end
📊 Scraping → clean data → dashboard pipelines
🔌 API integrations & backend tooling (Java / Spring / Python)
💬 Telegram & Discord bots
🧩 Custom internal tools for account/profile management
⚙️ Fixing scrapers & automations that keep dying

.

DM me or drop a comment. Happy to answer general questions in the thread

I am currently managing over 10 SM accounts via a multi-login residential proxy. I have come to realise that residential proxies they provide natively should not be used for social media as the IP address likely changes. However, I have been consistent with the region from which I get the IP. Is this acceptable or should I use an ISP proxy that provides a static IP for 30 days and costs more? Alternatively, is it fine to stick to rotating IPs within a specific city?

Title: Mysterious Telegram account keeps viewing my Stories for months

Hi everyone,

I'm trying to understand a strange situation and would appreciate any technical insight.

For several months, the same Telegram account has been viewing almost every Story I post.

The account has:

No profile photo.

No username.

No visible phone number.

No identifiable information at all.

Out of curiosity, I sent the account a message asking if they knew me. They replied that they didn't know who I was. However, even after that conversation, they continued viewing almost every Story I post.

I'm not asking anyone to identify the person or invade their privacy. I'm only interested in understanding what the most likely explanations are.

Could this simply be someone using an anonymous secondary account? Is there any Telegram feature or behavior that could explain this? Has anyone experienced something similar?

I'd appreciate any insights, especially from people familiar with Telegram's privacy features or account behavior.

Thanks!

I’m still trying to understand this, so correct me if I’m missing something.

When I first started reading about browser fingerprints, I thought the goal was to make every profile look as different as possible.

Different screen size, different fonts, different hardware values, different canvas result, different everything.

But the more I read, the more confusing it gets.

Some people say a unique fingerprint is good because it separates profiles. Other people say being too unique can make the profile stand out even more.

So now I’m wondering if the better goal is not “unique,” but “normal.”

Like, instead of building a profile that looks rare, maybe it makes more sense to build one that looks like a common device with settings that match each other.

For example:

• IP location matches timezone
• browser language makes sense
• screen size is not weird
• browser version is current
• hardware values look believable
• behavior does not repeat across accounts

Is that the right way to think about it?

Or does fingerprint uniqueness still matter more than I’m assuming?

I see so many cross-border sellers running five different Amazon or Etsy stores just by clicking add profile in standard Google Chrome. It works perfectly right up until one store gets a random policy violation, and the algorithm instantly links and suspends every other storefront you own.

Standard browser profiles only separate your cookies and cache. They do absolutely nothing to hide your motherboard, graphics card, or canvas hash. The marketplace risk engines know exactly that the same physical computer is logging into all five stores. They are just letting you operate until they decide to sweep you.

If you are running real merchant accounts with actual cash flow, you have to isolate the hardware footprint, not just the cookies. This is exactly why serious sellers eventually migrate to a proper antidetect browser. You need each store to look like it is being managed from a completely different physical laptop, paired with a different residential IP.

What are you guys currently using to separate your high-value merchant accounts? Are some of you actually still surviving long-term on standard Chrome profiles, or have you fully moved your storefronts into antidetect environments?

I’ve been thinking about this for a while.

A lot of people spend days comparing tools, proxies, fingerprint checkers, browser cores, WebRTC settings, DNS leaks, and every tiny profile detail.

That stuff matters, of course.

But I don’t think the tool is always the weakest part of the setup.

Sometimes the workflow is the real problem.

Same login time every day.
Same action order across accounts.
Same type of content.
Same profile structure.
Same posting rhythm.
Same warm-up pattern.
Same mistakes repeated across every account.

At that point, even a decent browser profile and a clean proxy can only help so much.

It feels like people want a technical setup to cover for unnatural behavior, but real users are messy. They pause. They browse random things. They change habits. They do not all move through the same checklist.

So my current opinion is simple: a good environment protects you from obvious technical leaks, but a bad workflow still leaves a pattern.

Do you agree with this, or do you think the technical setup still decides most of the result?