/b/ is forced anon on purpose. It's tradition. Some board like /a/ do have identifiers turned on. Any other boards where you'd like to see the feature added let me know

What I meant was, for the boards that do have IDs enabled, could you make it so that the same poster would get a different ID in a different thread? Or, at the very least, different IDs on different boards? With the current system, a user gets one ID that's used on all ID-enabled boards, which makes it way too easy to track the activity of any user across unrelated threads/boards.

>>10861
>could you make it so that the same poster would get a different ID in a different thread? Or, at the very least, different IDs on different boards?
What purpose would this serve?

I can't see it being used for good. It's only real purpose would be shitposting across multiple boards/threads with less accountability. If you say something stupid and someone calls you out on it in another thread that's your fault.

A far better option would be giving the poster a "Show ID" tick box so if they are trolling they can omit their ID, and if they stand by their words they display it.

Let admins set the default as a board option as well as allowing us posters the option of checking it:
Default ID setting (on/off)
Show ID Check Box (on/off)

Just use trips, man. Why should one reinvent bycycle?

>>10862
>If you say something stupid and someone calls you out on it in another thread that's your fault.
Well, that's exactly my point - I really don't think it should be like that. The whole point of an Anonymous imageboard is that you're not judged by your username, but by the content of your post. If you're giving all users a global ID sitewide, how is that any different from having a public username, albeit a hashed one?

Don't get me wrong, I do think there is utility in having IDs, if only to keep track of who's who in a conversation and to minimise samefagging. However, I think one should be given a clean slate when in a different thread (or at the very least in a different board), so that you're not discouraged from meaningfully contributing to a thread about, say, programming, by the mere presence of an ID that pissed you off in a debate about politics.

Besides, a committed shitposter like the mentally ill postbot of /phi/ never posts from the same IP anyway, so none of this really applies to someone who goes out of their way to shit up the site.

>The whole point of an Anonymous imageboard is that you're not judged by your username, but by the content of your post.
It's close but not quite the intent. The whole point of an anonymous image board is your identity on this website is independent of that in the real world.

>>10865
Right. Because there's no distinction between an Anonymous imageboard and a forum with a fixed public nickname?

>>10866
>Because there's no distinction between an Anonymous imageboard and a forum with a fixed public nickname?
That depends on whether you have to sign up and provide personal details (no matter how easy they are to spoof).

>>10867
Take your pointless strawmen and goalpost moving somewhere else.

>>10868
You're the one making a false equivalency between a website that requires personal details in order to post and one that does not.

Just a reminder: y'all toaster for refusing to implement even such a basic feature, let alone any other upkeep. It's kinda sad to see the site in this abandoned state, but it also sends a clear message - if the owners don't care about it, why should anyone else?

Not gonna lie, this would be insanely easy to implement with a random seed per thread used when hashing the IP address into a user ID. Sadly, I don't think the code base is being worked on anymore, nor is it even publicly available in an official capacity for user submitted patches.