Feature soft forks introduce new functionalities to the network, with examples including BIP16, BIP65, and BIP66. These types of forks carry a risk of chain splits if nodes that have not upgraded disagree on the validity of transactions, necessitating broad consensus before deployment.

Security soft forks aim to enhance the network's security without necessarily adding new features. Examples include BIP42 and BIP143, along with measures to address issues like worst-case block validation times, 64-byte transaction limits, and time warp attacks. The primary goal of these forks is to mitigate vulnerabilities with minimal risk of causing chain splits. This is because attempting to exploit vulnerabilities targeted by security soft forks would be considered hostile behavior, leading to the potential exclusion of the offending party from the network.

There are also soft forks that serve dual purposes, improving both security and functionality. Notable ones include BIP141, BIP143 again, and BIP341. These were particularly focused on rectifying sighash vulnerabilities by introducing a new witness version, which added new features such as SegWit versions 0 and 1. While these combined-purpose soft forks bring about deployment risks due to their feature enhancements, they are necessary for addressing significant security concerns.

The discussion suggests a preference for deploying security-focused soft forks independently of those that add new features. This approach allows for quicker implementation of critical security fixes once they have been thoroughly reviewed. However, there is an acknowledgment of the inherent deployment risks associated with any soft fork, primarily due to potential bugs in the implementation. The Great Consensus Cleanup is highlighted as a resource for further understanding this perspective, underscoring the importance of prioritizing network security while cautiously advancing its capabilities.