What's a decent percentage for Bitcoin improvement proposals?

So, here's the deal. As we've come to realize, Bitcoin is this decentralized network that's open source, meaning it isn't controlled by just one person or entity. It's all about the participants, like miners, developers, and us users who buy and sell. Our activities are what keep the Bitcoin network secure. I like to think of it as a company without a single owner, where every worker has their role to keep things running. Being curious, I can't help but notice the inevitable disagreements that pop up among people in the same space. So it makes me wonder, how does the Bitcoin community go about making changes to the network? We know that for any upgrades to happen, a majority has to be on board with the proposal first. In my research, I found out that there’s a specific process to follow before any new development can land on the Bitcoin network. The Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, or BIPs, are the way to suggest changes, upgrades, and developments aimed at enhancing the Bitcoin protocol. There have been quite a few additions to Bitcoin that weren't part of Satoshi's original vision. I came across some BIPs on GitHub like bip-0001, bip-0002, bip-0008, and so on. I've shared a link below to the complete list of all the BIPs that have been proposed or approved.

1. To attain the status of a bip it means that it has been approved and implemented to an extent already. Proposals do not get called Bips with a number attached to them. Different wallets use different bips to run their system. 2. Yes it can though User activated soft forks, if it already has over 51% community support. 3. That's the overwhelming majority already. Note that there are also different kind of Bips like consensus, RPCs and peer services and not all require consensus rule.

It is simple: you have the current version, which is up and running. If there is enough support to make an upgrade, then people can do so. But most of the time, the "status quo" is preserved, and nothing is changed. Also note, that there are many things, which can be done, without touching consensus. For example: if you want to compress transaction data, you can do so without any forks. And there are many kinds of BIPs, including a lot of those, which are "Informational", which means, that they are fully optional, and you can implement them, or skip them, if you want. You have a large table in the README file: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/README.mediawiki (it is visible in the front page, but you probably didn't scroll enough to see it). You have a column called "Status". It depends. Historically, different BIPs had different activation rules. See the "Status" column, mentioned above. There are many different kinds of changes: 1. Hard-forks: highly discouraged, the nearest one can happen in 2038 or 2106, people try to avoid it at all costs, because then you can easily create an altcoin, instead of improving Bitcoin. 2. Soft-forks: this is something like Segwit or Taproot, but we had some smaller soft-forks, which are less known, but also important (for example BIP-42). 3. No-forks: those changes are done on a regular basis. For example: HD wallets, compressing transactions, signing messages, UI changes. Also note, that there are some second layers, where you can experiment with features, without deploying it on mainnet, for example millisatoshis in LN have no on-chain representation. It depends on activation rules, but yes, if something is activated, then to deactivate it, you need another soft-fork (because "just turning it off" could lead to a loss of funds). Well, sometimes things are scheduled, and sometimes not. For example, fixing Value Overflow Incident was never planned in advance: it just happened, and required an immediate reaction. The same with fixing total supply: there was just some simple commit, and the whole BIP was created later, to explain, what happened, and why it happened.

No. There is no approval or implementation requirement for something to be a BIP. Just because something has a BIP number and is in the BIPs repo does not mean that it is a good idea. Just because something is a BIP doesn't mean it is "approved" or otherwise active, deployed, or at all used in Bitcoin.

So much to learn from the three replies I got from you (@vjudeu), @Upgrade00, and @achow101. But I think I need to make further research from what @achow101 and @Upgrade00 are trying to point out. Both replies looks contradicting. I guess I didn't  . So many rejected, and I guess those with the "FINAL" status are in the last phase of the community review?.

No, there are no phases of community review, or approval steps, or anything like that. "Final" means that the proposal is being used enough that the BIP itself should not be changed as that would cause confusion. However, just because something is "Final" does not mean that it is recommended or a good idea. It means that no changes will be made to the document itself. Note that the "Final" and other statuses are probably going to away since they're fairly vague and subjective. There will likely be a successor to BIP 2 proposed in the coming months that greatly simplifies and clarifies several parts of how BIPs works.

Also there is the case where BIPs are put into use, at a much more limited scale, while they are still drafts. This is usually how so many BIPs never get to the final stage since there are a few structural problems with them but they are still used by those programs, and fixing said problems would cause a backward-incompatible change. So it never advances.