He's using the date range from the blog post from dga who worked for some whale miners to optimize the code and had a high network share until July or so (at a cost of $100K/month I think) and assuming all the coins mined up until that point are attributable to unfair cripple mining.

However, he is conveniently ignoring the other info (including from that very same blog post) that allows you to objectively reduce by a large amount the total coins, and also supports that the developers of Monero had nothing to do with the original probably-deliberately crippled code. For example, in the blog post it is stated that he didn't even start working on optimizing until after the first (most probable) of the alleged crippling had already been removed by NoodleDoodle, so that takes off the first 2 1/2 weeks, etc.

If you analyze it in the other direction and treat dga's group as being "known mining" and work backwards to how much of the unknown mining could have been captured by unknown parties using unfair means (possibly devs, possibly others), again you get a much smaller number.


That one has nothing to do with Monero since mentions memory use and he never optimized Monero's memory use. He also worked on a bunch of other coins (definitely PTS, not sure which others) so he must have been talking about one of those.