To mitigate potential issues arising from rapid sequence activities that could exploit a fourfold limit on operations, it's suggested that the last timestamp must be separated from the first by a minimum of 3.5 days. This interval represents a quarter of a two-week period and is seen as a preventative measure against specific types of computational attacks.

The discourse further explores the implications of this strategy in relation to known attack methodologies, specifically referencing Zawy’s attack and an alternate variant proposed by the author. Both strategies hinge on the manipulation of elapsed time, particularly through the creation of negative elapsed time intervals, to circumvent restrictions and push block activities into the future. This manipulation is identified as a vulnerability that the proposed timestamp separation aims to address.

However, the conversation also acknowledges a gap in understanding or solution for scenarios where elapsed time is underestimated but remains non-negative. The contemplation here indicates a nuanced challenge in ensuring system integrity without the exploitation of time-related parameters, suggesting that while certain safeguards can be implemented, there may still exist vulnerabilities that are not fully understood or addressed. This ongoing dialogue highlights the complexity of securing computational systems against sophisticated methods designed to exploit temporal constraints.