pull down to refresh
Well the P in this things is "proposal", so it's inherently trying to convince others, rather than just documenting something you built for yourself that others can adopt, or not
The opposite might be something like http smtp or ftp not being a proposal to tcp/ip
You can try to convince people of something whether or not the something is located in one single place or in many places.
The real test of not having a single BIP repo would be some kind of soft fork BIP, as I imagine that would be very tricky to coordinate without a single source.
But I don't think it is true that single source for each BIP has to equal same source for a BIPs.
You can convince people just by doing a thing and they see it works... Showing vs telling
Proposals skew towards telling. The BIP repo, correctly or incorrectly, is equated with Core as the default distribution
If telling the default distribution fails, thats perceived as a filter ... Committee building... which kills potential early or legitimizes bad things.
These types of things exists because people are over socialized, deferential, lack confidence, etc, the natural course of weak men creating hard times.
What if the NSA decided not to build Bitcoin after the negative responses to the paper on the mailing lists?
Do you know of any systems like BIPs, NIPs, PIPs, etc where they don't use a central repo to collect them, but rather follow a format (like that proposed by BIP3) but rely on whoever proposed a specific idea to host the repo for that idea alone?
So: a BIP is something that follows this format, not a BIP is something that is in this repo.