[nonbel]

>"The Justice Department has opened a criminal probe into whether traders are manipulating the price of Bitcoin and other digital currencies, dramatically ratcheting up U.S. scrutiny of red-hot markets that critics say are rife with misconduct, according to four people familiar with the matter. [...] Federal prosecutors are working with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, a financial regulator that oversees derivatives tied to Bitcoin, the people said."

Why isn't there a better source for this than "four people"? I didn't see anything on the DOJ site. Perhaps they are talking about this: https://www.cftc.gov/PressRoom/PressReleases/7731-18

However, that doesn't mention the DOJ so maybe not. Is it normal for the DOJ to anonymously report its activities to journalists like this?

[ceejayoz]

> Why isn't there a better source for this than "four people"?

Because they're leaking. "Four people" is how a media organization says "it's not just one whackjob making shit up".

> I didn't see anything on the DOJ site.

Why would you? They don't appear to have publicly announced anything yet.

> Is it normal for the DOJ to anonymously report its activities to journalists like this?

It's normal for people at the DOJ to do so, yes. Some leaks are done on a semi-official basis (https://boingboing.net/2017/02/22/the-leaky-leviathan.html), others are just individuals doing it on their own.

[nonbel]

So it sounds like we are dealing with a rumor here. What reason do we have to believe these four people? I guess it is the reputation of the journalist on the line if the rumors turn out to be false.

[ceejayoz]

> So it sounds like we are dealing with a rumor here.

Media organizations get pretty good at distinguishing between rumor and leak. Any major one will have all sorts of policies on how a story gets verified, and they tend to work. Mistakes do get made, as with anything involving humans.

> What reason do we have to believe these four people?

The media organization involved deems them credible enough to use as sources. It's left mostly up to you whether you trust that media organization.

> I guess it is the reputation of the journalist on the line if the rumors turn out to be false.

Yes, essentially (and their editors, and the publication, and the media as a whole...). This is why reporters cultivate sources, vet their information, keep track over time of their reliability, and generally require multiple independent sources if those sources are leaking anonymously.

[dragonwriter]

> Why isn't there a better source for this than "four people"?

The same reason that (except for actual indictments and subsequent court filings, and the extraordinary fact of the appointment of a special prosecutor) we get most—often later confirmed as accurate—info on the Mueller probe through similar sources outside DoJ: the DoJ doesn't leak much but a criminal investigation naturally touches people outside the DoJ that are less prone to avoiding leaking. Those can be people in the agency giving a criminal referral, which this reporting suggests would likely have come from the CFTC, or they can be people connected with witnesses (including, but not limited to, those who have been given notice indicating that they are subjects or targets of the investigation.)

[cjbos]

Its highly unlikely that any of those 4 people are DOJ employees. More likely 4 traders that have been interviewed and confirmed as much to the journalist.

[nonbel]

This is even worse than if it was DOJ leak. We would be dealing with a rumor started by people under investigation for manipulating bitcoin prices...

[dragonwriter]

Being interviewed in the course of an investigation means you are a potential witness, not necessarily a target or even subject of the investigation.