There are lots of different ways to deal with unnamed peaks, and most that I can think of have appeared in Bivouac.
These are called 'generated names':
1) Windsor S2
2) Peak 31-12
3) Peak 5400
4) Peak 1645
In principle, these names can all be generated algorithmically (they all refer to the same peak), so that the only decision to make is which scheme to use. One thing that has become clear is that there is no consensus as to which is the best. But nobody would get too upset about peaks being referenced in this way, even if it isn't their preference. In fact, in principle your choice of naming scheme could appear as a user preference, but that would make communication between people with different preferences difficult. In any event, a peak with a generated name is clearly an unnamed peak -- there is no risk of confusion there.
(The scheme (5) is a reference to a scheme that was in place before I joined Bivouac. I never learned the algorithm, so the 'De3' is arbitrary. A specific example is Cy5 -- the 5th unnamed peak in the Cayoosh Range or something like that?)
All of these schemes have problems, especially when there is a concentration of unnamed peaks. In this case, especially if scheme (1) is being used (my preference), there is an argument for assigning some (non generated) name to the most prominent peak in the area. A relatively innocuous approach is to adopt the name of a local geographic feature, such as one of the creeks that drains the peak (creeks seem to get names more than peaks). Such a name is called a 'geographic' name. Crawford Peak in the Mamquam SW summits is an example. Usually, such a name will not induce controversy, however there are notable exceptions. For example, 'Crazy Peak' in the Cadwallader Range had been referred to as such in published trip reports, but Robin decided to change its name to Cadwallader Peak, alienating the authors of the trip reports (going so far as to change the name within the trip reports that were on Bivouac). This is an indication of the core of the Bivouac peak naming problem: Robin's attitude.
Anyway, there are ways of dealing with unnamed features that would at least generate less frustration than the flood of bogus names that have appeared in Bivouac in recent years. Having said that, there should be a means of adopting names that are not official. There are lots of well established names that are not official: Chimai, and Charlie Charlie are two examples that come immediately to mind, but there are dozens or hundreds of examples of such names that are not official, but well established in guidebooks etc. Bivouac refers to such names as 'standing'.
New unofficial names are called 'provisional' in Bivouac. I think it is really good that there are these name classifications, and I don't have an objection to a gentle introduction of new provisional name. The problem is that the infusion of bogus names on Bivouac has been anything but gentle. What is more, all of Robin's new names are incorrectly classified as 'standing'. Robin is the only person who can introduce a new name or change a name in the database. He is the only person who can change the classification of a name.
The primary problem isn't so much that peaks are being named, it is the process by which this is occurring. For example, the VOC can be considered a primary stakeholder in the Mount Brew area of the Squamish Cheakamus divide; they have a cabin there. There is a slew of bogus names in the area. I have never been there, but it appears that every insignificant bump has been given a name (Hops, Keg, ...). If these features needed names, I would like to see them filter in from VOC anecdotes. I don't know, but I would be willing to bet that nobody from the VOC was consulted about these names.
The unnamed peak issue is difficult, and there is no solution that would satisfy everybody. In spite of my frustration with the bogus names, I think there is a lot that Bivouac is doing right. In fact, I think a few simple changes could ameliorate the problem considerably:
1) If a name is unofficial, it should appear in a different font, even if it is a geographic name. It should be very clear what the name status is for a peak.
2) All standing names should be made provisional, and all editors given the permissions to change them back to standing if appropriate.
3) Robin should refrain from introducing new provisional names.
There has been talk in the past about creating an alternative to Bivouac, but it has apparently just been talk. I think anybody who undertakes such a project would have to hugely underestimate how much work has gone into Bivouac. However, a truly collaborative effort can accomplish amazing things. I understand that Bivouac was a much more collaborative project in the early days. Also, much of the data that has manually been introduced to Bivouac could probably be imported algorithmically from government sources if somebody is clever enough.
No matter what, it would take years for such an effort to match the current utility of Bivouac. Initially lot of thought would have to into the copyright model that would best fit a truly open and collaborative project. Otherwise it would just be somebody else's site, rather than Robin's site. Maybe Openmaps is worth looking at.