(not having a go at you personally, but questioning the status of github)
Really you just want the very first part, since the more complex bits are around having mutable "latest" versions and usernames.
And here's the github repo: https://github.com/cjb/gittorrent
You don't want to clone a particular revision ID, you want to clone a particular branch. If it "lives" in one known place, then its home can provide access control. But if it doesn't have a home like that, then everyone needs to have consensus on what's included and what's not. And you probably don't want to have to publicize a new repo/branch/whatever ID every time your committer list changes.
Actually, that's exactly what I personally want for a bunch of things. I want to grab a very specific version of an item and know that I've got the one I expected.
I highly dislike centralisation, especially if it is centralisation on proprietary services. The more the merrier, people should feel comfortable using different sites and not chastise the underdogs.
But in the reality of things, having a central repository with a voting system that is significant and trustable enough is very important - for example, when you need to choose between apparently similar libraries. And a star on Github - rather, a good number of stars - does count much more than any number of stars on any other service in the programming community.
I say this not because I have a particular love for Github - I also use Gitlab for some projects, and it's very good - but just because it's the way it is.
The whole point of the internet, from TCP up, is (choosing/being) our own gatekeepers.
EDIT: I really wanted to give a star to the source code, but it's not on github - it's on gitgud [1]. Honestly, for your private projects, use whatever you want, but if you have an open source one and you want discoverability and stars, use github.
[1] https://gitgud.io/unconed/mathbox