Well THAT'S interesting...

[SgtSpike]

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

[1714909903]

1714909903

[Meni Rosenfeld]

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.

[SgtSpike]

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. 

[westkybitcoins]

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.