Agreed, the only reason why NyanCoin didn't take off swiftly was that other attempt to make a coin of the same name for a quick pump and dump. If that hadn't happened then NyanCoin would be in a much different place today.

Not that I mind all that much considering the fact that it allowed for quite a nice stretch of low-difficulty mining before things picked up!

Indeed. While I have no expectations of FoxCoin having the home-run success of certain others, I fully expect it to stick around and do reasonably well. It has more than enough distinguishing features from the sea of alt-coins being released of late to make it stand out - which is to say that it has pretty much all of the 'good' with none of the bad. It's the kind of coin that actually has potential for the early adopters that hold onto it rather than the typical alt-coin where making a mad dash for the door shortly after release is the best strategy.

That's correct   Though only in this case because the target block reward time is in minutes, more generally it'd be  (**) / ( * ). And keep in mind that it's just an extreme simplification to get a rough expectation. After all, the divided by portion would only be true if averaged over an extremely long time with a constant network MH/s. And neither of those conditions are true in this case - we're talking about a relatively small sample size and network MH/s is constantly changing. But it still works adequately for a rough estimate.

Not certain how you're setting your expectations? Just going by the simplest calculation of an ideal block target time of 60 seconds and a 250 FOX block reward you end up with the following for 30 minutes at 3.3 MH/s with a 250 MH/s network speed - 250*30*3.3/250 = 99 FOX per half hour. Now sure, 500 FOX in 4 hours is quite a bit short of that, but that calculation is overly optimistic regardless. Though that calculation matches up pretty much perfectly with your 66 coins per hour at 1.2 MH/s.

Just to join in on the unlikely possibility - WTS 250 FOX for 0.2 BTC

That scaling would indeed make more sense. Though would that shifting be universal? Or only present in the wallet? Because if it's only present in the wallet then it'd likely just end up being confusing - in that case it'd make more sense to keep a FOX as a whole coin with a defined mFOX designation of cub or kit. Basically it's a fun idea, but I'm not certain on the implementation side how well it'd actually work.

Since this one piqued my curiosity figured that I'd also chime in.

I tend to agree with the idea of effectively changing the decimal point in the representation. It's not just about the early miners feeling more 'rewarded' because of getting large numbers of coins though. No, it's primary advantage is that when each individual 'coin' isn't worth much people don't mind using them for random things.

At the same time, just moving the decimal point like that would introduce the slight 'issue' of the default miner/transaction fee costing a large number of 'coins'. So unless that could be changed to match then it'd probably be a net loss - it'd kinda defeat the purpose of having low individual coin value if one has to pay a 10 'coin' transaction fee.

Still, having fox and cub denominations defined is definitely fun. Could even be silly and have a kitsune somewhere above a fox too.

I've been continuing to have the same debate daily, with Dogecoin typically winning out as of yet since it's continued to show higher return that Litecoin when selling short term. That said, I tend to believe that Litecoin represents higher potential if holding onto them for a longer term, though even then it currently is slightly better to mine Dogecoin and exchange to Litecoin, no?