On Mon, Aug 13, 2018 at 10:37 PM Samuel Lotz <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Martin,
> Apologies that its not very understandable, I honestly was a little
> confused myself.
>
> Your solution works for me exactly as I want, however, then I am losing
> the convenience of using the booking method (LIFO in my case). I tried this:
>
> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853 BTC
> @ BTC
> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC
> {}
> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC
> {}
>
> But I get an error in bean-check.
>
> I would imagine that this would have the same effect because the cost
> basis for the lot would be filled in automatically, but I figured
> disambiguating would help like this:
>
> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853 BTC
> @ BTC
> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC
> {USD}
> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC
> {USD}
>
>
>
> But it books the cost-basis of the BTC in the Jaxx account as
> 9885.214421538461538461538462 USD :
>
Yes, it makes sense, see below
>
> --> bean-doctor context ledger.beancount 107
> Hash:972251de2efc72a4e7f2a2c4654440cb
> Location:
> /home/salotz/tree/personal/studio/projects/index/troubleshooting.general/beancount/issue_000/ledger.beancount:107
>
> ------------ Balances before transaction
>
>
> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining
>
> Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.01878653 BTC {2661.48 USD,
> 2017-06-14}
>
>
> Assets:BTC:Jaxx
>
>
> ------------ Transaction
>
> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853 BTC @ 0.00000000 BTC
> ; 0 BTC
>
There are no other legs with BTC, so it fills in a price of zero.
(Note that a legitimate argument could be made as to whether an
automatically filled in price of zero should raise an error.)
> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC {2661.48 USD, 2017-06-14}
> ; -3.8552336244 USD
>
This gets matched against the inventory, so against the 0.01878653 BTC
{2661.48 USD, 2017-06-14} position, and reduces it.
The weight of that posting of -3.8552336244 USD
> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039000 BTC {9885.21 USD, 2017-06-14} ;
> 3.855233624400000000000000000 USD
>
Now this is an augmenting leg, and we must squeeze 3.8552336422 USD 's
worth of 0.00039000 BTC, which means they must be worth 3.8552336422 /
0.00039 each, so you get 9885.21.
Everything is at it should.
Tolerances: BTC=5E-9
>
> ------------ Balances after transaction
>
> * Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
> BTC
>
> * Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.01733800 BTC {2661.48 USD,
> 2017-06-14}
>
> * Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC {9885.214421538461538461538462 USD,
> 2017-06-14}
>
> Maybe I am mistaken and this is correct but it doesn't seem to me since
> then if you sold the position in the Jaxx wallet it wouldn't be booked
> against the original cost-basis that was calculated when the lot was bought.
>
I don't understand this question.
>
> I've attached a minimum working example for a lot of test cases and their
> results written in the comments. It may not be of much use to you though,
> but when I don't understand something I tend to go for the enumerative
> brute force and try to understand the results and compare.
>
So you start from this:
2017-06-13 * "Coinbase" "Test buying bitcoin"
Expenses:Fees:Trading 1.99 USD
Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.01878653 BTC
{2661.48 USD}
Assets:Checking -51.99 USD
The first one looks like it should match,
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC
;; RESULT: Bean check error on the directive: no position matches
because there's a single lot in the inventory and it should be able to
infer the currency fro that.
That should be doable (not a bug, but definitely a possible improvement).
It doesn't match because of this check:
https://bitbucket.org/blais/beancount/src/tip/beancount/parser/booking_full.py?fileviewer=file-view-default#booking_full.py-579
I'll file a ticket to make this case work:
https://bitbucket.org/blais/beancount/issues/324/when-matching-against-a-single-lot-infer
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC
;; RESULT: bean-check directive error: does not balance as BTCMining leg is
not balanced
This is normal; the 2nd posting is in USD, and then you have two augmenting
postings in BTC with nothing else to reduce them.
Two currency groups (USD, for the 2nd posting, and BTC for the sum of the
1st and 3rd, each unbalanced).
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: bean-check syntax error
That one actually gives me the same error as the first, no position matches
against the second posting.
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: bean-check directive error: does not balance
Same problem as the second (BTC @ BTC should not be allowed, BTW, makes no
sense).
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: bean-check syntax error
Again, I get a position not matched error, not a syntax error.
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: bean-check directive error: doesn't balance
Same as the second case, you're correctly matching against the inventory,
but the currency groups aren't in balance
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ USD
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: no error. Books no cost-basis BTC to the Jaxx wallet. Books BTC
to expenses
That's expected. You /always/ have to provide the cost basis explicitly on
an augmenting leg, unless it's possible to interpolate it because it's the
only missing number. Your comment hints that you might think the cost basis
numbers somehow translate between postings... they don't. The total cost
basis is used to balance with the other legs, but the per-unit cost is LOST
in this balancing.
Here the first two legs are interpolated - the second one is first matched
against the inventory contents (interestingly enough, this works despite
the absence of the USD disambiguation, I have to investigate), the first
one has the corresponding price filled in. The third one is alone in BTC
and is interpolated to a price of 0 (again, it's debatable whether this
should generate an error, I'm starting to think it should).
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ USD
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC @ BTC
;; RESULT: no error. Books no cost-basis BTC to the Jaxx wallet. Books BTC
to expenses
Same
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ USD
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC {}
;; RESULT: bean-check error
The third posting's currency is impossible to categorize. What are the
units supposed to be? USD? EUR? JPY? Remember there's no constraint in an
account that there ought to be a single currency, or even a single cost
currency for the same currency. Maybe I could add that further constraint
to an account to make the interpolation more powerful, but it's not like
that now, accounts can contain a mish-mash of different things (see the
one_commodity plugin).
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ USD
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC {}
;; RESULT: bean-check directive error: too many missing numbers for
currency group USD
Normal. But this should have yielded the same error as the preceding case
but somehow it managed to infer the third leg was USD too and we have two
numbers to fill-in / interpolate (on the first leg, and the third one).
Not possible.
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC {}
;; RESULT: bean-check error
Same
;; 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
;; Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
BTC @ BTC
;; Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853
BTC {USD}
;; Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039
BTC {USD}
;; RESULT: no error. Books no cost basis to BTCMining, books correct amount
to Jaxx
;; but with a cost-basis of {9885.214421538461538461538462 USD}
If you write no {} there will never be any cost basis... on an augmenting
leg if you want cost basis you need to provide it explicitly.
I can probably stop here, I think you'll have an eureka moment just now.
My conclusions are that in a single transaction directive it is not
> possible to automatically (i.e. not specify the position to reduce against)
> split an inventory reduction into an expense and an asset transfer and keep
> the original cost-basis.
>
On an augmenting posting held at cost (e.g., adding a positive number of
units of a currency with a {} spec), you always need to either provide an
explicit cost basis for it, or that being the only number missing in its
currency group, in which case it can be interpolated.
Per-unit cost basis numbers are /never/ transferred between postings. Only
the total is used to balance the postings within each currency group.
>
> I tried splitting it into two transactions and this seems to work
> swimmingly, so this is the way I will do it for now until the booking
> capabilities are more advanced.
>
> I really appreciate your responses.
>
Sorry for the delays, I'm currently traveling and working - in my real job
- at the same time.
>
> ~Sam
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 4:20 PM, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Aug 11, 2018 at 10:39 PM <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I lied I was missing the new error message:
>>>
>>>
>>> /home/salotz/tree/personal/studio/projects/index/finance/ledger/ledger.beancount:1161:
>>> Transaction does not balance: (0.00105853 BTC)
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
>>> BTC
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC {2661.48 USD,
>>> 2017-06-14}
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC @
>>> 9885.214421538461538461538462 USD
>>>
>>>
>>> Upon investigation in bean-doctor:
>>>
>>> ------------ Balances before transaction
>>>
>>>
>>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining
>>>
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.004151 BTC {2247.70 USD,
>>> 2017-05-24}
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.01878653 BTC {2661.48 USD,
>>> 2017-06-14}
>>>
>>>
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------ Transaction
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
>>> BTC ; 0.00105853 BTC
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC {2661.48 USD,
>>> 2017-06-14} ; -3.8552336244 USD
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039000 BTC @ 9885.21
>>> USD ; 3.855233624400000000000000000 USD
>>>
>>>
>>> Residual: (0.00105853 BTC)
>>> Tolerances: BTC=5E-9
>>> Basis: (-3.8552336244 USD)
>>>
>>> ------------ Balances after transaction
>>>
>>> * Expenses:Fees:BTCMining
>>> 0.00105853 BTC
>>>
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.004151 BTC {2247.70 USD,
>>> 2017-05-24}
>>> * Assets:BTC:Coinbase 0.01733800 BTC {2661.48 USD,
>>> 2017-06-14}
>>>
>>> * Assets:BTC:Jaxx
>>> 0.00039 BTC
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems that it is booking the lot from Assets:BTC:Coinbase all to
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx because of the use of that syntax, and then the mining fee
>>> leg is unbalanced and not considered at all.
>>>
>>
>> I read what you wrote three times and I don't understand what you're
>> saying.
>> In any case, here's how this works: in this transaction:
>>
>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853
>> BTC
>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC {2661.48 USD,
>> 2017-06-14}
>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC @
>> 9885.214421538461538461538462 USD
>>
>> - The first posting "weighs" for 0.00105853 BTC
>> - The second posting "weighs" for -0.00144853 BTC x 2661.48 USD
>> = -3.8552336244 USD
>> - The first postings "weights" for 0.00039 BTC @
>> 9885.214421538461538461538462 USD = 3.8552336244 USD
>>
>> So it has two currency groups to balance:
>> 1. USD, with the two legs cancelling each other out: -3.8552336244 +
>> 3.8552336244 = 0, so we're goot.
>> 2. BTC, of which there is a single leg and the amount (0.00105853)
>> exceeds the tolerance, so BTC is not balanced.
>> So you get an error.
>>
>> One way to achieve what you want is this: keep the cost basis in Jaxx and
>> book your expenses as BTC without cost basis
>>
>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>>
>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining 0.00105853 BTC @ USD
>>
>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase -0.00144853 BTC {2661.48 USD}
>>
>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx 0.00039 BTC {2661.48 USD}
>>
>> Unfortunately, you cannot leave more than one number to be interpolated
>> in each currency group.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> So I tried:
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase
>>> -0.00144853 BTC {}
>>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining
>>> 0.00105853 BTC @ USD
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx
>>> 0.00039 BTC @ USD
>>>
>>> And to reverse the autofilling of the amount:
>>>
>>> 2017-06-14 * "Transfer" "Transfer funds to Jaxx wallet"
>>> Assets:BTC:Coinbase
>>> -0.00144853 BTC {}
>>> Expenses:Fees:BTCMining
>>> Assets:BTC:Jaxx
>>> 0.00039 BTC @ USD
>>>
>>>
>>> But I get this error for both:
>>>
>>>
>>> /home/salotz/tree/personal/studio/projects/index/finance/ledger/ledger.beancount:1163:
>>> Too many missing numbers for currency group 'USD'
>>>
>>
>> Beancount only supports a single interpolated number by currency group to
>> balance.
>> It's a very complicated answer to explain why, but essentially revolves
>> around the fact that the problem is underconstrained.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Not sure what to do at this point except for booking the mining fee in a
>>> separate transaction.
>>>
>>
>> Cryptocurrencies offer a particular challenge in that reductions at cost
>> basis are made as often as expenses for some users.
>> Beancount isn't particularly well adapted to that (but nothing else is
>> either).
>> See another recent-ish thread on Bitcoin.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>> 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/0a916715-69ab-4337-b327-c256aa3e1f3b%40googlegroups.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/0a916715-69ab-4337-b327-c256aa3e1f3b%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 a topic in the
>> Google Groups "Beancount" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beancount/Qvbcq-Sk5NY/unsubscribe.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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%2BhMnx3Yk%3DJKurxaV2ZGNz0Eq87iYYPBYfPoBeX_hwn%3DuLw%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhMnx3Yk%3DJKurxaV2ZGNz0Eq87iYYPBYfPoBeX_hwn%3DuLw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Samuel Lotz
>
> [email protected]
>
> --
> 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/CAEZ4YMUYkT5Qd1BYmJakw-vf9ivQsTi%2B1e1iAUhZiqHcO52DNg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAEZ4YMUYkT5Qd1BYmJakw-vf9ivQsTi%2B1e1iAUhZiqHcO52DNg%40mail.gmail.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%2BhP%2BH7gi3zEpWj1Twgo7A94xz-pMLGD5ahQD-6kq0D6FBA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
