On Thu, Jun 15, 2017 at 11:17 PM, Dave The Happy Singer <
[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Martin et al,
>
> I'm still trying to understand how to reliably book transactions without
> explicitly specifying the cost basis on every leg (e.g. with FIFO booking)
>
> Here is a test case with everything explicit, that passes bean-check. I
> buy 1 BTC for 1000 AUD from an account initialised with a positive AUD
> balance. Then I transfer a sum to a cold wallet and back to the hot wallet,
> incurring a fee on each transaction which I book to a BTC-denominated
> expenses account.
>
> option "operating_currency" "AUD"
>
> 2014-01-01 open Equity:Opening-Balances
> 2014-01-01 open Assets:AU:Cash AUD
> 2014-01-01 open Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC BTC
> 2014-01-01 open Assets:AU:Hotwallet BTC "FIFO"
> 2014-01-01 open Assets:AU:Coldwallet BTC "FIFO"
>
> 2014-01-01 * "Initial cash balance"
> Assets:AU:Cash 1000.00 AUD
> Equity:Opening-Balances
>
> 2014-01-02 * "Initial hotwallet balance"
> Assets:AU:Hotwallet 1.00 BTC {1000 AUD}
> Assets:AU:Cash -1000.00 AUD
>
> 2014-01-03 * "Deposit Cold storage"
> Assets:AU:Hotwallet -0.050000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
> Assets:AU:Coldwallet 0.049000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
> Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
>
> 2014-01-04 * "Withdraw Cold storage"
> Assets:AU:Coldwallet -0.049000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
> Assets:AU:Hotwallet 0.048000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
> Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
>
Side note: Your expenses should probably be best booked in AUD, not in BTC.
In any case, it doesn't make much sense to store anything in an expense
account with a cost basis.
However, despite making my wallet accounts "FIFO", whenever I try to remove
> the explicit {1000 AUD} cost basis in my reducing postings, I start getting
> errors.
>
> For example, if I use {} in the first transaction:
>
> 2014-01-03 * "Deposit Cold storage"
> Assets:AU:Hotwallet -0.050000000 BTC {}
> Assets:AU:Coldwallet 0.049000000 BTC {}
> Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {}
>
> I would be hoping that as FIFO is specified for the Coldwallet account,
> the lot is inferred.
>
The reducing lot is inferred (the first one).
However, bean-check now complains: Failed to categorize posting.
>
For the augmenting lots (the second and third one), there's no way to infer
what the cost basis should be, only you know that. e.g., you can use this
syntax to do cost basis adjustments.
Except, you may still be able to skip ONE number for each currency group.
But... you also cannot omit too many currency groups. Consider the case
where you might use a different currency on the other leg (this has
happened to me before for a stock exchange between CAD and USD if I
recall). Anyhow, disambiguating the currency is easy; for example, this
works:
2014-01-03 * "Deposit Cold storage"
Assets:AU:Hotwallet -0.050000000 BTC {1000 AUD}
Assets:AU:Coldwallet 0.049000000 BTC {999 AUD}
Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {}
Furthermore, attempting to debug with bean-doctor doesn't quite work for
> me. The transaction in question starts at line 17. But beandoctor context
> <filename> 17 returns the context for the previous transaction at line 13.
>
That's interesting; if there's no error, it works fine.
However, I think in this case, because this error was irrecoverable, the
transaction was skipped, and the behavior of the line-number selection is
to select the closest previous transaction. It does result in an odd
behavior.
Maybe I should always create transactions even when there are errors.
https://bitbucket.org/blais/beancount/issues/169/consider-always-creating-some-transaction
Which it correctly infers to:
bean-doctor context smile2.beancount 19
Hash:b8a74ca220f3ebc6fce9da5d1ddd8738
Location: /home/blais/r/q/beancount-data/user/smile/smile2.beancount:17
------------ Balances before transaction
Assets:AU:Hotwallet 1.00 BTC {1000
AUD, 2014-01-02}
Assets:AU:Coldwallet
Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC
------------ Transaction
2014-01-03 * "Deposit Cold storage"
Assets:AU:Hotwallet -0.050000000 BTC {1000 AUD,
2014-01-02} ; -50.000000000 AUD
Assets:AU:Coldwallet 0.049000000 BTC {999 AUD,
2014-01-03} ; 48.951000000 AUD
Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {1049 AUD,
2014-01-03} ; 1.049000000 AUD
Tolerances: BTC=5E-10
------------ Balances after transaction
* Assets:AU:Hotwallet 0.950000000 BTC {1000
AUD, 2014-01-02}
* Assets:AU:Coldwallet 0.049000000 BTC {999
AUD, 2014-01-03}
* Expenses:Financial:TransactionFees:BTC 0.001000000 BTC {1049
AUD, 2014-01-03}
> If I try amending the second transaction to use {} (instead of the first
> which I set back to {AUD 1000}), bean-check replies "Too many missing
> numbers for currency group 'AUD".
>
How would you like Beancount to know which currency should be used?
I've been thinking in the past that perhaps it should infer it from the
prior inventory--e.g., if there's a single (unambogious) cost currency
present in the ante-inventory's list of positions, fill that in
automatically-- but that would be more inference than it has done before. I
don't dislike the idea.
https://bitbucket.org/blais/beancount/issues/170/try-inferring-currency-from-the-contents
> And bean-doctor ... 13 shows the expected balances after the first
> transaction but beandoctor ... 17 doesn't show any opening balances even
> though it directly follows the tx at 13.
>
Also probably the same issue, transaction might have been skipped due to
error.
Hmm I should improve that, I have seen that problem from time to time, it
is a bit of an annoying behavior.
Any idea what I may have done wrong here? I'm using beancount==2.0rc1 as
> installed by the latest package on PyPI. I've read the Inventory and
> Trading docs several times, but obviously I'm still learning so if I've
> wasted your time I apologise. Still excited by beancount!
>
You're not wasting our time; please keep bringing up interesting corner
cases like this.
I'm not really interested in Bitcoins, but I like that it's dredging up
things at the edge of the booking code...
This is all good testing and discussion, if you have the patience.
Dave
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Beancount" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/
> msgid/beancount/d559299b-9f6e-45f6-bec4-996d2b52b4ef%40googlegroups.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/d559299b-9f6e-45f6-bec4-996d2b52b4ef%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhM3rQdqZ_k1LmY6XLWoGfgm0SpYMNicVHcUxzcOfyv%2Bgg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
