This approach contrasts with an alternative method mentioned in a forum post, which suggests maintaining a non-decreasing earliest_time_past value alongside the monotonic median time past. The earliest_time_past would start at the genesis timestamp and subsequently be the maximum of itself or the current block's timestamp minus two hours. An additional consensus rule would require the next block's timestamp to be greater than or equal to earliest_time_past, supplementing the existing rule that it must be greater than the median time past.

The preference for a rule that applies consistently to every block, rather than one affecting only every 2016th block, is articulated as potentially superior. This perspective stems from the desire for uniform application across all blocks, aiming for simplicity and consistency in the protocol's rules. The dialogue indicates that most of the forum thread’s focus was on options that either replaced or simplified the median time past, which the author does not consider practical. This suggests a lean towards solutions that enhance the blockchain's robustness against timestamp manipulation while preserving the integrity of its temporal structure. The conversation highlights the ongoing debate within the community regarding the best methods to secure blockchain timekeeping against possible attacks, reflecting a nuanced understanding of both the technical and governance challenges involved.