It suggests utilizing the highest timestamp from among the previous 11 blocks plus the current block's timestamp as a more reliable metric. This method would ensure that the selected timestamp is at most two hours into the future, aligning with standard practices for timestamping; this is in contrast to the potential inaccuracies associated with MTP, particularly its ability to reference points in the past.

Furthermore, the discussion emphasizes the importance of monotonicity in timestamps, advocating for miners to enforce this characteristic even in the absence of formal requirements. Although it acknowledges that requiring such enforcement across all miners might be premature, it argues for the benefits of having timestamps that consistently increase. The underlying premise is that while MTP and timestamps with PoW support are generally valid, their reliability diminishes when they fail to adhere to sequential order.

This leads to the broader implication that the security issues and lack of PoW support become apparent when there is a deviation from this sequential ordering. Such deviations pose significant risks when timestamps are relied upon by code, scripts, applications, or legal contracts for accuracy. Thus, the conversation highlights a critical need for a revision in the approach to timestamping within the Bitcoin network to mitigate these risks and enhance overall security and reliability.