The main consideration is whether blocks that have undergone the same amount of computational work should be validated concurrently. This idea stems from the observation that, in extreme cases where a block takes an hour to validate, it's possible to encounter up to six competing blocks at the same level of total work. However, the likelihood of a competing block appearing decreases significantly with the validation time, estimated at a 1/600 chance for every second of validation time.

A notable strategy mentioned involves prioritizing blocks that validate more quickly than others, even if they are announced later. This method could potentially act as a deterrent against slow-block attacks by giving precedence to faster-validating blocks. Nevertheless, this tactic also introduces significant changes to current practices, especially in non-attack situations. For example, the reliability of single confirmations would diminish, complicating the decision-making process for miners when encountering a new valid block. Miners would need to weigh the chances of another block being produced that validates more quickly before deciding whether to ignore the new block or to continue mining upon it.

This proposal, while innovative, opens up a complex set of challenges and considerations. The potential for changing how blocks are validated and selected for addition to the blockchain could lead to unforeseen consequences in both attack and normal scenarios. It highlights the delicate balance required in blockchain protocol design between enhancing security and maintaining practical usability and efficiency.