I find this whole "its an altcoin thing really stupid"  to me if a fork has the transaction history of what we call bitcoin now then how is it an altcoin?  i might not like the fork but i cannot say it is an altcoin.

We can have both. BU wants to attack any chain which isn't BU though.

Obviously supporters of each side are going to call the other side the "altcoin".

remember core have been REKTing xt, classic, bu and bitcoinj

yet BU want consensus of all diverse nodes working together.
its core with the ban hammer and blackmails (bip9, UASF, PoW algo change) not the other way round

you think core is perfect..
hmmm 8 years of orphans - https://blockchain.info/orphaned-blocks  (if perfect there should never be a orphan)
major orphan event in 2013

even now
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues

oh and need we forget. if core is soo perfect then segwit is not needed because there is nothing to "fix"

you do know there is not actually 20 billion in fiat sat around in bank accounts with bitcoins name on it

Segwit is a fork too.  So segwitcoin would be an altcoin right?

yes they can
and thats where the fake sales pitch of the reddit script writers have fooled you

by only talking about the best case scenario of soft
and worse case of hard.. but not mentioning all the options

see now your twisting things

soft can be consensus meaning no split.. or contentious possibly split or bilateral guaranteed

by you intentionally saying non-contentious.. your baiting...
try
"Can you explain to me how two surviving chains could exist in a non-consenus softfork?

and your answer is bip9 has code in it to trigger banning and orphaning..
oh and UASF does too.. i think you can guess what the S stands for

well you did add the "non-contentious".. rather than just ask about soft..
but here goes.


in short PoolA simply ignore and automatically reject blocks of certain version. and they just build on their own.

by pools doing this. they can keep building their own without halting just by looking at the version and declining it. without even validating its tx contents

what you will find it that there are 2 chains. growing forever.. but because its soft. the non-minin nodes(hard) will get confused be and swapping between the two dependant on height (non-mining node mega orphan drama(causing hard controversy) which then forces the nodes to pick a side just so the nodes dont see the orphan drama causing a hard bilatral split.. or remain with the orphan controversy mega orphan drama of endlessly swapping

but with or without non-mining nodes the pools are building 2 chains and not fighting, just ignoring each other

no.. im saying
there are 3 possibilities.. well 6 in total of what happens.
depending if its consensual (one chain all agree, opposer's just left dead in the water unsynced)
or controversial they dont agree but they fight it out with orphans and swapping chains drama and headaches and double spend risks etc
or bilateral, by ignoring and thats when there is 2 linear nonfighting chains

as i said too many people just take soft and only mention softs best case.. then take hard and only mention hards worse case


it all depends on circumstance there are 6 possible results.. not 2


dependant on whats been changed. yes while the POOLS(soft) are either endlessly fighting or going separate ways
the non-mining nodes could also be in the orphan drama or just not getting relayed anything.. leaving them stuck and unsynced.

like i said for months.. its not a simple yes no answer multiple things can occur.

but based on BU refusing to bilateral split and only want consensus.

if BU got consensus.. nodes such as BU,classic, xt and other including some core nodes that did tweak their blocklimit will carry on.
the blockstream(core) that refuses dynamics or shifting to a higher base block would be left stuck and not syncing. dead in th water

however core are threatening soft bilateral. which then can allow corefanboy pools(soft) to build on by ignoring dynamic pools.
and then that leads the nodes(hard) are in controversy because of orphan drama.. because there are 2 chains(but core would orphan the dynamic one) eventually leading to nodes(hard) doing a bilateral, to avoid seeing the dynamic block just to stop auto orphaning them by just being blind to them.. meaning it becomes a hard bilateral split.

excuse the pun... its not a trigger.. its a CHAIN of events

So then in the most simplest form, a "fork" within the softfork termonology is
indeed a new chain separate from the pre-softfork chain. Correct?


This above statement can only occur if there is indeed a new chain.



Yes. I already understood that aspect.
The confusion was that I thought you are not splitting the chain but performing a "insert"
within the same chain. That is how I understood it (a restriction level applied to the same chain).



I don't care about bilateral splits since that is outside of Consensus in relation to my question.
I have no idea if CORE will or will not perform a second hardfork that is bilateral.



So, basically a softfork is a chain split in the same way a harfork is a chain split.
I understood a softfork as a restriction layer added to the current (only) chain.