The pools don't get cutoff, they decide difficulty has increased enough to change coins and left it to the regular miners. For why that is bad for regular miners, just read SilentBit's post.
The next 15 blocks in the list are the same 3 addresses listed above, with the addition of one more (MQkqCo7Wdr88iM5F6pJjc3x69iEmqiaD7F) grabbing the first and last three of the series. Someone with more time (I need to go back to work), can look at those addresses.
That's what I meant by being cut off, the diff catches up to them and they stop hashing while normal miners continue as usual.
Now ask yourself this question: how would the litecoin network react to a 5-10x increase in hashrate and a 5-10x decrease in hashrate as soon as the diff adjusts to the increase. Allow me to answer: their network would freeze up as most of the other coins in existence that have larger networks than myr.
But those normal miners continue on with little to show for it. Read SilentBit's post.
Regarding LTC, their network is already so much larger that it wouldn't make much difference. Many profit pools have LTC as their low coin. LTC gets hit regularly, and has been for a while. For evidence, just go look at http://wafflepool.com/stats
That's not the point though. The point is a combination of SilentBit's post that explains how normal miners get borked and the fact that profit switching pools are working towards including algo switching. This means that the normal miner will get borked across ALL altos in the future. It was/is interesting to watch on one algo, but across all that would absolutely destroy this coins primary "for all" theme as the normal mine and hold guys get shafted.
I feel I'm not getting through to you so I'll say it again: WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO LITECOIN IF IT HAD OUR SCRYPT HASHRATE AND GET HIT LIKE THAT ? WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO ANY KNOWN COIN ? IT WOULD GO TO SHIT THAT WOULD HAPPEN, ON OUR COIN IT'S BARELY NOTICEABLE. THAT'S THE POINT.
EDIT: sorry for the caps, it's meant to take the point across not as shouting or something else.
But that point is incorrect. There are a bunch of new altcoins that get hit by profit switching pools every day. They survive the network hit. What they complain about is loss of value to the miners and investors who want to hold rather than dump for BTC. The networks don't drop (most of the time). If you want to point out the loss of value to the MYR community (everyone that actually acquires MYR rather than mine 'n dump) as being low since there are other algos, that's what I'm warning about. Those other algos will not be free of profit switching pools long.
Again, whether or not the network survives is unimportant to this conversation. This is not something unique to MYR. I've seen it on many new altcoins that get hit. The drag is on the pools themselves. They have less resilience to a bump in hashrate than the altcoin chains. This has nothing to do with the concerns raised about MYR and the response to profit switching pools. We are not talking about frozen networks or forked chains. We are talking about loss of value to the coin and the community that supports it in favor mine 'n dump profit switching pools.
I'm just trying to understand: Your main concern right now with multipools is that they mine and dump and this creates a loss of value?
I want to make a couple points if so:
1) If Myriad had the most perfect difficulty readjustment calculations for dealing with mutlipools, it still does not prevent them from mining and dumping. Nothing can prevent this.
2) Instead of worrying about something we cannot fix (mutlipool dumping) and its perceived negative impact on the day-to-day value of MYR (which is still debatable), why not attack this problem from the other direction? I think we should focus on creating buying demand for Myriad that would offset any multipool effects.
: resilient, not resistant 
)
).
