1) he thinks that "dedicated servers" are in any way secure
2) discovers malicious intrusion, but doesn't burn down the whole server and re-key everything
3) is supposed to be knowledgable enough to be a core Bitcoin developer but stays on a "dedicated server" after finding malicious intrusion.
This is highly suspect. Either you have stuff that's not worth much, and therefore you don't pay to physically colocate your own server, or at very least you don't pay enough to get a server from a smaller company where you're dealing with real humans with names and reputations... Or you're storing things that really matter, have a large value, or likely both, and you'd pay extra to get better things.
What kind of hubris would lead to continuing to use a compromised server, particularly when the compromise appears to have come from the hosting provider?
Perhaps we need to wait for more information, but from what I've seen so far, there's something not right here.
> What kind of hubris would lead to continuing to use a compromised server, particularly when the compromise appears to have come from the hosting provider?
"Appears to" to the incompetent victim of attack, "I dunno how it happened therefore it must be hosting provider".
He has found no avenue of attack, decided he must be perfect sysadmin so it couldn't be say just a plain 0-day or fact he didn't upgrade some software with security problem and went on blaming hosting provider.
... then continued to use not only same provider but same compromised server for months.
1) he thinks that "dedicated servers" are in any way secure
2) discovers malicious intrusion, but doesn't burn down the whole server and re-key everything
3) is supposed to be knowledgable enough to be a core Bitcoin developer but stays on a "dedicated server" after finding malicious intrusion.
This is highly suspect. Either you have stuff that's not worth much, and therefore you don't pay to physically colocate your own server, or at very least you don't pay enough to get a server from a smaller company where you're dealing with real humans with names and reputations... Or you're storing things that really matter, have a large value, or likely both, and you'd pay extra to get better things.
What kind of hubris would lead to continuing to use a compromised server, particularly when the compromise appears to have come from the hosting provider?
Perhaps we need to wait for more information, but from what I've seen so far, there's something not right here.