Your post is full of nonsense and ignorance. Have you been hanging out at /r/btc lately? Let's start:
1. Segwit is not comparable to LN and does not symbolize something that "is not Bitcoin". Segwit in its essence is a change of the way that the data is being stored.
2. LN does not involve moving "away from Bitcoins original design" or whatever this means. It is certainly not an altcoin.
3. If anything, Classic is the altcoin here. Should I bring up the story of Clams? Clams forked away from Bitcoin without consensus and retained existing balances (they were redeemable). The difference between Classic and Clams is that it is not called "Bitcoin Clams".
Upgrade to Core 0.12 and you will be fine.
im glad Lauda is not a dev team member and is just a blockstream fan boy..
here is another post by LAuda to prove his mis-understandings
The internet is not really decentralized.
in his mind there is just 1 ISP company who is the sole DNS and the soul Hosting datacenter.. he truly lacks understanding of the basics of the difference between
centralized.. vs
limited distribution and wide distribution decentralization.he thinks its binary 1 or 0, boolean true or false. he cant grasp that centralized=1 and decentralized is a sliding scale that is from 2(not colluding) to infinity..
so back on point..
1. the funny thing is that segwit is definitely not a capacity increase solution, but a temporary plaster until something else fills in the cut.
the even funnier thing is that segwits April release means that if blockstream wasnt so narrow minded. they could implement the 2mb code in the April version. knowing that malleability is sorted. and knowing 2mb buffer wont be set until ATLEAST May. thus there would be no problems with a 2mb+segwit
but no.. they want to mess around with bitcoin adding new bytes of data and flags to make bitcoin transactions more bloated to coax people away from bitcoin and onto LN, Liquid and other side chains.. increasing the transaction fee due to this, BEFORE even thinking about increasing blocksize... why? well they hope by 2017 people wont be using real bitcoin transactions so that blockstream can then make more excuses that larger blocksizes are not needed because they have successfully coaxed people away from bitcoin.
the real laughable thing is that Lauda and his flock of blockstream lovers say there are no capacity problems right now to need 2mb.. IF that were true (its not) that same argument can be used to say sidechains are not needed right now.
(the real answer to both sides is BUFFER to cover future possibilities of growth. not wait till the shit hits the fan)
2. about LN: if a transaction is not confirmed by a miner and relayed by ALL bitcoin nodes and not included in a block before it can be spent again... then its simply not a bitcoin transaction.
LN is logged by a single processor (channel owner) and not relayed to ALL nodes and can be respent without a single bitcoin blockchain confirmation
its only later(hours days or weeks) that the channel then sends out a real bitcoin transaction that is a organised culmination of movements of those LN transactions of the channel.
in short its not an altcoin, because there is no different chain.. its simple an OFFCHAIN solution.. (not bitcoin) and then having the balances reorganised on the bitcoin network later..
different network=not bitcoin. you might aswell compare LN to MTGox, rather than an altcoin
3. classic is bitcoin. just like bitcoinJ is bitcoin, just like all the other dozen implementations are bitcoin.. the part Lauda doesnt understand is that if the people move across (majority), then its the laggers (minority) who are left with their head in the sand grabbing at clams..
he doesnt quite get that for classic to be approved means the majority accept it. and by him and his ilk not moving with the majority.. they are the clam holders
