guys.
you have been fed a script of hidden meaning. where by soft vs hard has been pushed out as softs best case scenario and hard's worse case scenario. and treated as if thats the only 2 options.
what you dont realise is soft can also cause splits. and hard can also keep the chain united.
for clarity
soft and hard is simply:
soft: pool only vote
hard: nodes and pools vote
below these umbrella terms is what could happen.. in both hard and soft it can either continue as one chain. or bilateral split
softfork: consensus - >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: small 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: controversial - >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: long big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced and dead
softfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
hardfork: consensus - >94% nodes, then >94% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: 5% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: controversial - >50% nodes, then >50% pools no banning/ignoring of minority. result: big% orphan drama then one chain. minority unsynced / dead
hardfork: bilateral split - intentionally ignoring/banning opposing rules and not including them. result: 2 chains
core do have network splitting code in thir bip9 soft activation
here is their lord speak of such
BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% [A] under the old approach. basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90% ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.
[A] basically leading to core centralism of 100% control by core
P.S
those thinking "china control bitcoin".
1. it was cor that gave pools the vote. bypassing user voting privilege. so dont blame the pools.
2. also not as many pools as you may think or as much hashpower as you may think is in control of china
3. if your still wanting to blame china. please stop watching fox news to lower your racial tendencies hypnotised into you. and stop reading reddit to not be fooled into the misdirects of core blaming everyone else, bar themselves