100k is less then the 750k - 1M that lost for hanging onto them for a year without use. Sorry but something smells fishy here, the first month they should have swapped the drives and put those servers back up. (saving the drives intact just incase the feds came asking for them)
You're forgetting that when they initially decided to keep the servers they didn't know whether Kim would regain access to his funds or whether he would want to buy the data back at all. In retrospect they could've made the decision to do what you're suggesting.
I know conspiracy theories are appealing, but it's much more likely that they took a calculated risk by holding on to the data/servers for one of their bigger, well-paying clients (~1.5% of their total server count). Then, when the gamble didn't look like it was going to pay off, they decided to cut their losses and reuse the servers.
Comments
100k is less then the 750k - 1M that lost for hanging onto them for a year without use. Sorry but something smells fishy here, the first month they should have swapped the drives and put those servers back up. (saving the drives intact just incase the feds came asking for them)
You're forgetting that when they initially decided to keep the servers they didn't know whether Kim would regain access to his funds or whether he would want to buy the data back at all. In retrospect they could've made the decision to do what you're suggesting.
I know conspiracy theories are appealing, but it's much more likely that they took a calculated risk by holding on to the data/servers for one of their bigger, well-paying clients (~1.5% of their total server count). Then, when the gamble didn't look like it was going to pay off, they decided to cut their losses and reuse the servers.