among them the implementation of bitcoin's a scripting language on which LN will be dependant.
What are you talking about?
Re altcoins, they're welcome to take our open code, but most altcoins don't have active development teams... and most of them are based on seriously outdated Bitcoin Core codebases and have serious bugs (either ones we fixed long ago-- or ones they added themselves). Considering that no one has generally exploited them suggests they're not very useful test points.
And what does any of this have to do with classic other than classic being seriously out of date?
Apparently I just hold developers to a higher standard than you.
You do? Oh. So perhaps you can tell me who is funding classic developers Zander and Gavin?
Great summary of some of your earlier technical points concerning the failure and/or refusal of either classic to update their code and similar happenings with a lot of these various alts that are neither updating their code nor even holding enough value in order that some serious attacker would want to attack them.
So, sure, in that regard, as you assert, these various alts are not going to be decent testing grounds for something that is seriously being considered for implementation in bitcoin in part based on their lack of updated code, lack of value and lack of ongoing attention and development.
In that regard, Bitcoin has a whole hell-of-a lot more at stake in the event of some kind of an attack were to take place and more likely to get attention for an attack because bitcoin has a relatively high and liquid value, and so bitcoin is more likely to be a lot more real world when it comes to having a decent testing ground once it goes live and attention to the coding issues and potential vulnerabilities before the code actually goes live.