Hi Ben, Thanks for pointing out that we'd need {} at a minimum.
Note that adding this to both the postings shows an error when I run
bean-check
Error message is here
Failed to categorize posting 2
2021-01-04 * "CoinbasePro" "Tranfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
#transfer
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.29738506 BTC {}
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.29738506 BTC {}
In order to fix this. instead of using #transfer and the transfer plugin I
used the below transaction with individual cost basis added to each
transaction
2021-01-04 * "Tranfer 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}
Using this too shows another error when I run bean-check
Error message indicates
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={'filename':
'<filename>', 'lineno': 112})" against balance (0.20778508 BTC
{18078.68014392563700916350683 USD, 2020-11-28}, 0.02109060 BTC
{23707.24398547220088570263530 USD, 2020-12-17}, 0.01977443 BTC
{25285.17889011212965430609125 USD, 2020-12-26}, 0.01741186 BTC
{28716.05905400112337223019252 USD, 2020-12-30}, 0.01667888 BTC
{29978.03209807852805464155867 USD, 2021-01-01}, 0.01464422 BTC
{34143.16365091483192686261201 USD, 2021-01-03})
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 21:14, Ben Blount <[email protected]> wrote:
> Beancount has two ways to track any kind of currency/commodity: at cost,
> or not at cost.
> Generally, currency like USD, EUR, etc are not tracked at cost. Stock,
> securities etc are tracked at cost so you can report capital gains.
> Beancounts infers what mode you are working in by the presence of a
> CostSpec { } when working with that lot (both for reducing and augmenting
> lots).
> It's actually possible for the same account to hold a commodity both at
> cost, and not at cost. This is *strongly *not recommended, and
> beancount.plugins.coherent_cost can be used to verify you don't do it.
> That plugin would show you what is wrong here. It's:
> 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
>
> You are trying to work with the BTC in the non-cost-tracking mode. You
> should at minimum add {}
> 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 {}
>
> But really what you likely actually want is to recreate all the original
> lots, just in a new account. That's the original subject of this thread.
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:00 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> 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
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCET5KOR5H2LqXBELTWnz4UiD0FEb%3DOYJ8uR6BqOM%2BGT%2BCA%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/CACGEkZsLWdkMLC0LTHy6HuFkfDzGzv2MHwJP0AX6Aje%2B-7Te0w%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZsLWdkMLC0LTHy6HuFkfDzGzv2MHwJP0AX6Aje%2B-7Te0w%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/CABieCES1xujaP%2BqZbMFHBXAMnknOpYcOJkGgdcBf3VGFPW8vDg%40mail.gmail.com.
