Yea, so you agree then? Linode should be held responsible since it had nothing to do with customer security and was indistinguishable from an inside job...
That forces the majority of Linode customers, who don't host large-value websites, to subsidize those who do. To provide coverage for exceptional and consequential losses, Linode would have to obtain much more expensive insurance and raise their rates to cover it. There's certainly room in the market for such a service, but I don't see why Linode should be forced to provide it, and their customers forced to pay for it, if they don't wish to.If you put leave your $50,000 Rolex watch in the pocket of a coat you put in the coat check of your local restaurant, you can't expect them to be responsible for it. It's just too costly to provide a service suitable for that type of high-value item. Use a safety-deposit box, where you pay for that level of security.
Bitcoins in a hot wallet are simply too valuable and too easy to steal. Putting them on a cheap hosting account is equivalent to checking the Rolex at a restaurant.
) 
