I'd also say, that this is the main problem.

It works like this:
The miner is working on a coin, while the pool already switched to another coin. The miner submits the done work to the pool and the pool answers: "Don't give me these results, they are no longer valid, because we are already working on another coin", throws it into the bin, and the submitted work is not counted for your REAL hashrate (the "pool-hashrate"). That explains the difference between what the mining-software shows and what the clevermining-website displays.

I'd say, if a switching-pool could/would solve this problem, the profits would be much higher. Why not let the miner still submit his work for the other coin, counting that as valid, and after that giving him work for the new coin? That should be solvable technically somehow, right?

Edit: If you see this behaviour, that also explains, why setting a high difficulty is not always the best solution. The same goes for the length of the work queue. Though the miner can work better, it takes longer to solve the work, and if the pool switched over to another coin in the meantime, before the miner could submit the results, even the best results don't count. With Vardiff it is the same problem. Vardiff continously adjusts to the possible hashrate of the miner. If you have a monster machine, it sets the share-difficulty high, and when the pool switches over to the next coin, before the work-results were submitted, all is lost and Vardiff then has to readjust. So if the pool switches often, you can really lose quite a lot of your possible profit.
Again, all switching pools should really work out a solution, that allows miners to deliver their work for the previously mined coin first and count that as valid, even if the pool already switched to the next, more profitable, coin.

And now think about MOON returning to its old value of ~30 Satoshi ... 

It seems that http://cga.thedigitalmint.org has catched up with P2Pools again. Maybe it simply is too slow, to keep the pace with P2Pools speed/power in solving blocks.

4.5 MH/sec. of what total rate?

In my opinion that would be only first aid. We had that already and it went bad again immediately after that. Maybe it is because of the ultra-short block times, which prevents to build up ONE blockchain among all peers. Maybe it is because the wallet is designed strangely? Who knows. Where is the dev? We definitely need him to chime in.

For me it seems that the wallets/daemons somehow don't communicate with each other to see, where is the longest chain and then automatically switch over to that.
Instead the notorious message "Warning: Displayed transactions may not be correct! You may need to upgrade, or other nodes may need to upgrade." appears. And you have to redownload/resync the blockchain. Something has to be corrected in the wallet, as it seems.

Usually the longest blockchain wins (that one with the highest block count).
Just sent some CGA to Swisscex via the P2Pool-blockchain and they arrived without error.

FYI - this is the market, if you want to trade there:
https://www.swisscex.com/market/CGA_BTC

But we should really make clear, what is the situation. It is really more than annoying with nearly everyone on their own chain. Even the P2Pool-nodes are on three different chains ...  

But mirror inverted, as it seems.

Other exchanges besides https://www.cryptsy.com/markets/view/145:
https://www.swisscex.com/market/MOON_LTC
https://coinedup.com/OrderBook?market=MOON&base=LTC
https://xnigma.com/markets/view/25
https://agx.io/markets/MOON-BTC
https://agx.io/markets/MOON-LTC

Edit:
https://cryptoine.com/trade/moon_ltc
https://cryptoine.com/trade/moon_btc

Important to all miners AND pool-operators

See this posting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=437950.msg7509153#msg7509153

The question is, who you see as "newcomers"? Surely a technical minded one, that likes to tinker with equipment, will be bored by having nothing to do, but start the wallet, buy coins and let the capital grow only by keeping the wallet connected to the network. But is this also true for those, that aren't able or willing to spend hours of work with getting their GPUs to work for mining?
At the end, a coin really only can survive if it is anchored in the broad mass. And I'd say 99% of those cannot even understand what mining really is (if you describe more than saying "printing virtual money"), let alone can setup a mining rig. They don't bother, if the coins they buy and use(!) are mined via SHA256, X11, Scrypt or PoS, they simply (and ideally) want to possess some, because it is "cool" to be part of it, has a collector's value, or has a real hard value for them (fast and cheap worldwide payment, secure storage of value etc.), or is a nice object for speculation.
We always have to keep that in mind.

Edit: typos

Even if X11 consumes less power, it is not profitable for most of the miners to mine coins with GPUs anymore. Be it Scrypt, X11, Groestl or another algorithm. Only those with very low electricity-costs can still mine profitable with GPUs, which is not true for nearly all (highly) developed countries with the corresponding power costs.
So as said: why saddle on a dead horse? What we need is not necessarily switching over to the next best algo, but a more widespread adoption of Mooncoin. It has to be profitable to mine it by the price, not by the algo. (Edit: And the price is made by demand, not by the algorithm.) Those miners that can mine X11 profitably, can also mine Scrypt profitably most of the time. Just see the lists on Coinwarz and Cointweak. There isn't really much of a difference between the profitability of the single algos.

Edit: And as it ever gets more easy to mine with the development of mining-software for the newer algos, the amount of dedicated GPU-mining power will proportionally go up for the other algos, too, if the price rises. So at the end the situation is the same for the other coins/algos as it is for Scrypt-based ones, because the free market will regulate that.

Edit 2:
"Bait the hook to suit the fish ... not the fisherman."  
... I know it all depends on the perspective. But if the coin is interesting for many people to buy into, it is more or less regardless of which algo a coin is based on, because then the price rises and the miners will switch over automatically.

Have you set the P2Pool-nodes as addnodes in the cryptographicanomaly.conf, so that your pool can keep in sync with them? The number of orphans seems to be odd.

Since we have new P2Pools (see the node-scanner: http://5.45.105.66:8080):

Important INFO

... to the pool-operator of the Slovenian-one - http://193.95.253.142:23932/static/ - Check your daemon! It seems as if you are on the wrong chain.
... to the US-one  - http://162.243.6.127:23932/static/ - You are on a third chain. That one is wrong, too.

Make sure you don't fork, as that is really annoying for us all.
Don't let people lose their coins by mining on your pool. Thanks.
Edit: Additionally open the P2Pool-ports on your server, so your nodes can connect to the other ones and exchange the information faster.

See here for the correct block-height: http://cga.thedigitalmint.org/ Update: --> Sometimes they are much behind P2Pool. Seems as if they are too slow, to keep the pace with P2Pools power of solving blocks.
The latest block-number should be +200698 at the time of writing (updated), like it is here http://5.45.105.66:23932/static/ and here http://149.210.168.71:23932/static/ (link "Last blocks"). The pool-rate is ~66 MH/sec. at the time of writing (updated). See this pool, too, in order to determine the correct chain: http://www.coinmine.pw/poolinfo.php?coinid=39 -- at the moment lots of orphans (edit: closed).

Edit 2: Please add the P2Pool-nodes to your cryptographicanomaly.conf by adding
addnode=149.210.168.71
addnode=5.45.105.66

and resync/redownload the blockchain.

If you're on Windows, go to C:\Users\YourUsername\AppData\Roaming\Cryptographicanomaly

Make a backup-copy of wallet.dat. Store it to a secure place!  This is just in case, something goes wrong (You should backup this file from time to time anyway).
Then delete everything in that folder - except wallet.dat.

Restart the CGA-wallet and wait for it to sync to the blockchain again. Report back here, if that helped.

 

BTW: What do you think of Proof of Stake? A good thing for Mooncoin, too? What I like with POS is that you don't have to "waste" plenty of electricity only to find blocks ...

Edit:
Maybe interesting to to read for all that don't know POS already: http://bitcoinmagazine.com/6528/

Don't know what you mean exactly, but the difficulty rising does not mean automatically to have many orphans, since if you mine in a pool with vardiff for example, the share-/work-difficulty will be set according to the hashrate one adds to the pool. So someone with big power will get higher share-difficulties, someone with only a little power will get shares that are easier to solve. So that the average rate of any solved share presented back to the pool will be sent in roughly the same timeframe. IF the pool uses vardiff, AND/OR you can set the diff for your device manually in the pools settings. For example P2Pool constantly adjusts the share-difficulty to the rate of your device, but you can also add a preset to the address that you mine to (format/example: 2DAMoonT94308uyxfdj7349367sadkj+0.0000016), in order to tell the pool, that you don't want to get lower diff shares than the preset, to save you from too much work that does not fit your miner. On multipool.us for example you can preset a difficulty in the settings on their site.
Hope this helps.

Did you read this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/28hd19/fresh_mods/

... and this:
http://www.reddit.com/r/MoonCoin/comments/28n4kp/official_update_june_20th_2014/

... already?

The first big Scrypt-ASIC-machines are out already. Think of the Innosilicon- or the GAW-ones. They are hashing already.
In my opinion another algorithm does not solve problems other than the fulfilling of hopes of miners to have better profitability with their GPUs. But to be honest, the time for GPU-mining with its complicated setup is over, if you ask me. So why should Mooncoin saddle over to an already dead horse? Why isn't Bitcoin already dead? It uses an even more uneconomical algorithm in terms of power consumption. I'm strongly for everything, that keeps power consumption low, but if that would be the main goal, we could also switch over completely to Proof of Stake, eliminating all need to mine and complicated setup of mining-equipment altogether.

But like in evolution, not all changes are to the good. I'd like to hear some arguments for another algorithm. What, if X11 and the likes can be mined, too, with ASICs in the not-so-far-future? Do we have to change again, then? What are the long term advantages of Groestl etc.?