It's actually not that rare an occurrence. I seem to recall a thread discussing it several months ago, after which it didn't take long before I noticed it once or twice.
Topic: Well THAT'S interesting... (Read 1036 times)
So the timestamp has to be after the timestamp of at least 6/11 of the prior blocks? That's quite the time stamp swing...!
I like my title.
I like my title.
It's definitely legitimate and I'm sure it happened many times already. The timestamp needs to be at least the median timestamp of the last 11 blocks.
You should consider making the thread title more descriptive.
You should consider making the thread title more descriptive.
First time I've seen a later block with an earlier timestamp... will the recent block with earlier timestamp eventually be orphaned? Or is it within the timeframe of legitimacy?
180333 144442e8dc... 2012-05-16 07:31:47 64 1233.16499847 40.402
180332 7c5168a99b... 2012-05-16 07:32:16 322 4007.88210775 127.434
180333 144442e8dc... 2012-05-16 07:31:47 64 1233.16499847 40.402
180332 7c5168a99b... 2012-05-16 07:32:16 322 4007.88210775 127.434
Jump to: