Hi Martin, Apologies if this was confusing. Can you elaborate on what is
wrong?
I have added comments to my transactions for your reference - Note the
points till which bean-check shows no errors.
Let me comment the individual transactions.
;; This transaction purchases BTC at Coinbase from Cash existing in
Coinbase account
;; The $3500 already existed and is correct from from the previous
transactions.
;; Also this transaction requires additional $256.48 which is used from my
Checking account
;; There are previous transactions
;; which I have not listed here.. For our discussion, consider that the
transaction starts here with
2020-11-28 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {} @ 18078.87 USD
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:Cash -3500.00 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -256.48 USD
;; All the below transactions are purchases by using cash from the checking
account
2020-12-17 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {} @ 23707.24 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
2020-12-26 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {} @ 25285.18 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
2020-12-30 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {} @ 28716.06 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
2021-01-01 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {} @ 29978.03 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
2021-01-03 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {} @ 34143.16 USD
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
;; I've added a balance assertion here to sum up the BTC accumulated
;; because of the above purchases
;; A bean-check until this transaction inclusive of the balance assertion
;; does NOT show any errors.
2021-01-04 balance Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
;; The next transaction I want is a transfer transaction from Coinbase to
CoinbasePro
;; I initially added the below
2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro" #transfer
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
;; I now added a balance assertion again to check if the transfer is
complete
;; and if the balance in CoinbasePro is correct
2021-01-05 balance Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC ;; to
check transfer complete from Coinbase to CoinbasePro
;; bean-check runs without any error until this point
;; which means the transfer check is correct even at CoinbasePro account
Now, at this point I want to add a sell transaction
2021-01-08 * "" "Coinbase dummy sell"
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC -0.20295107 BTC {} @ 34860.28 USD
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:Cash 7074.93 USD
Expenses:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:Fees 35.37 USD
Income:Capital-gains
When I added the above sell transaction and run bean-check I get the
following error
No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC',
units=-0.20295107 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=<class
'beancount.core.number.MISSING'>, number_total=None, currency='USD',
date=None, label=None, merge=False), price=34860.28 USD, flag=None,
meta={file} against balance (0.29738506 BTC)
Ghanashyam
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 18:57, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:
> This looks all wrong, see other thread.
> To buy BTC at Coinbase, the money all comes from your Coinbase:Cash
> account.
> Transfers from your bank are separate transactions.
> Reflect what's actually going on in the account
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 8:35 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> I had a similar use case here and ended up using the plugin to report the
>> transactions and then copied them manually into the transfer posting
>> This is my entries list. However I see that when I run bean-check (v2),
>> it errors out with an error
>> No position matches "Posting(account='Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC',
>> units=-0.20778508 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('18078.87'),
>> number_total=None, currency='USD', date=datetime.date(2020, 11, 28),
>> label=None, merge=False), price=None, flag=None, meta={
>>
>> Do you know why it complains on No Matching position when the Cost basis
>> are exactly the same?
>>
>> 2020-11-28 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {} @ 18078.87 USD
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:Cash -3500.00 USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -256.48 USD
>>
>> 2020-12-17 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {} @ 23707.24 USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>
>> 2020-12-26 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {} @ 25285.18
>> USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>
>> 2020-12-30 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {} @ 28716.06
>> USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>
>> 2021-01-01 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {} @ 29978.03
>> USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>
>> 2021-01-03 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {} @ 34143.16
>> USD
>> Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
>>
>> 2021-01-04 balance Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.29738506 BTC
>>
>> 2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
>> 2020-11-28}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
>> 2020-12-17}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01977443 BTC {25285.18 USD,
>> 2020-12-26}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01741186 BTC {28716.06 USD,
>> 2020-12-30}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01667888 BTC {29978.03 USD,
>> 2021-01-01}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01464422 BTC {34143.16 USD,
>> 2021-01-03}
>>
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
>> 2020-11-28}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
>> 2020-12-17}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {25285.18 USD,
>> 2020-12-26}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {28716.06 USD,
>> 2020-12-30}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {29978.03 USD,
>> 2021-01-01}
>> Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {34143.16 USD,
>> 2021-01-03}
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 2 January 2021 at 03:10:52 UTC-8 David Terry wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks for the detailed answers!!
>>>
>>>
>>> > BTW, David: as you can see, transfers work fine when fully specified,
>>> so this is a matter of convenience. I personally have a vim plugin that
>>> uses bean-doctor context to insert the lots.
>>>
>>> It seems to me that it's more than a matter of convenience. If the
>>> reductions / augmentations are explicitly specified, the booking will be
>>> potentially incorrect (i.e. no longer respect FIFO) if transactions that
>>> change the state of the inventory are subsequently added to the ledger with
>>> a date before that of the transfer.
>>>
>>> > Curious: is there anything specific to crypto that makes these
>>> transfers common?
>>>
>>> Transferring funds between institutions / accounts is very common when
>>> working with crypto. For example, it is not generally considered prudent to
>>> leave crypto custodied at a centralised exchange, so many users will
>>> transfer their assets into their own custody directly after having made a
>>> trade. As another example, users of DeFi applications will often move their
>>> assets between many different institutions (smart contracts) as the yields
>>> offered to depositors change.
>>>
>>> > If this is the defining/key feature that enables working with crypto
>>> currencies, we could consider supporting this explicitly in the core
>>> booking algos (in v3, not touching v2 much anymore)
>>>
>>> As mentioned above, these workflows are very common. I would certainly
>>> be very happy if these workflows were supported in the core booking
>>> algorithms.
>>>
>>> > Also: I'd love to gather a set of features that are key to making
>>> Beancount more usable for cryptocurrency trading.
>>> > Here's a doc where you can insert ideas:
>>> >
>>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1taN9lbcNDf8bKgDwprWOhuaOsOgALZzmsfvec-rdaSk/edit#
>>>
>>> Very happy to hear that you're interested in working to make beancount
>>> more friendly for crypto users. I'll keep playing around and see if I can
>>> find some other pain points :)
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, December 30, 2020 at 8:22:33 PM UTC+1 [email protected]
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 1:39 AM [email protected] <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tuesday, December 29, 2020 at 10:02:15 PM UTC-8 [email protected]
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Dec 30, 2020 at 12:55 AM [email protected] <
>>>>>> [email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That makes sense. I was thinking of a system where
>>>>>>> plugin/booking/interpolation iterate over the same entries until no more
>>>>>>> modifications occur. This would involve some thought to prove (a)
>>>>>>> commutativity (order doesn't matter), and (b) convergence (no infinite
>>>>>>> iterations).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Iterate over the same entry until no more modification occurs" seems
>>>>>> error prone to me, and a potential nightmare for debugging.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Agreed. Although I've seen it work very well in systems where the key
>>>>> was to identify the constraints to make it work predictably.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Reg. the other approach -- i.e., supporting this in core booking
>>>>>>> algos: even outside crypto, isn't the philosophy you've put forth
>>>>>>> "works on
>>>>>>> unambiguous source"? Given that, is there a syntax that removes
>>>>>>> ambiguity?
>>>>>>> For example:
>>>>>>> *2020-01-01 * "Transfer"*
>>>>>>> * Asset:BrokerageA -10 HOOLI {}*
>>>>>>> * Asset:BrokerageB: 10 HOOLI {}*
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> might be unambiguous for FIFO, LIFO, and STRICT, and arguably for
>>>>>>> NONE (and AVG in the future). I.e., identical CostSpec after inverting
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> sign of one. I haven't thought deeply about all cases, and anyway, not
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> most important thing for v3.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "works on unambiguous
>>>>>> source",
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What I mean is: even if a CostSpec if incompletely specified, as long
>>>>> as it is unambiguous beancount will process it correctly. For example:
>>>>> there's no need to specify date in a cost specification as long as the
>>>>> price is adequate to uniquely identify the lot. Along those lines, I was
>>>>> making the argument that the transaction above is unambiguous in saying
>>>>> "transfer all lots from BrokerageA to BrokerageB," and thus, it would be
>>>>> nice for the core booking algos to handle it correctly rather than depend
>>>>> on a plugin.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>> The challenge is to design those things to be general. I think in this
>>>> case the addition could be as simple as honoring a special flag on an
>>>> interpolation posting, telling the interpolation code not to convert to
>>>> cost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> --
>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/bd63fee9-2635-4a7f-9d2f-c6be0ab723edn%40googlegroups.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/bd63fee9-2635-4a7f-9d2f-c6be0ab723edn%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhOOPwB%3DbQe5GHdtiaZpEUYpYSZsp_Z1D124r0k47eSXZA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhOOPwB%3DbQe5GHdtiaZpEUYpYSZsp_Z1D124r0k47eSXZA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCET5KOR5H2LqXBELTWnz4UiD0FEb%3DOYJ8uR6BqOM%2BGT%2BCA%40mail.gmail.com.
