OK, but I would call that a hardfork ('ignoring consensus orphaning mechanism').
soft forks do not need to result in a chain split
hard forks do not need to result in a chain split
soft involves just pool agreements to change something, thats just a network upgrade with one chain
hard involves nodes agreeing to change something, thats just a network upgrade with one chain
again
soft forks do not need to result in a chain split
hard forks do not need to result in a chain split
when some pools disagree and decide to intentionally ignore/ban/reject blocks/communication and the opposition continues. thats a chain split
when some nodes disagree and decide to intentionally ignore/ban/reject blocks/communication and the opposition continues. thats a chain split
soft can intentionally cause a split
hard can intentionally cause a split
and again
soft forks do not need to result in a chain split
hard forks do not need to result in a chain split
by thinking all "hard" actions = split.. and all "soft" actions = utopia.. that is taking softs best case scenario and hards worse case scenario. and avoid talking about the opposite
Please explain how a softfork would cause a chain split. A node ignoring/banning/rejecting blocks/communication means it diverted from the chain protocol which equals to a hard fork in my point of view.