I did note the precision from the error message
Are you suggesting using something like
option "inferred_tolerance_default" "USD:0.001"
I have it already - with and without this makes no difference
The alternative method of using only dates, is it something like this
below? This too shows an error with bean-check but the error message isn't
that informative though
> Failed to categorize posting 7
2021-01-04 * "Transfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {2020-11-28} ;;;;
18078.87 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.20778508 BTC {2020-11-28} ;;;;
18078.87 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {2020-12-17} ;;;;
23707.24 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01977443 BTC {2020-12-26} ;;;;
25285.18 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01741186 BTC {2020-12-30} ;;;;
28716.06 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01667888 BTC {2021-01-01} ;;;;
29978.03 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.01464422 BTC {2021-01-03} ;;;;
34143.16 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.02109060 BTC {2020-12-17} ;;;;
23707.24 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01977443 BTC {2020-12-26} ;;;;
25285.18 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01741186 BTC {2020-12-30} ;;;;
28716.06 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01667888 BTC {2021-01-01} ;;;;
29978.03 USD,
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC -0.01464422 BTC {2021-01-03} ;;;;
34143.16 USD,
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 21:56, Ben Blount <[email protected]> wrote:
> One more thing to add, if you want to match the lot with 2 digits of
> precision, try to specify it that way when you first create the lot.
> Unfortunately sometimes that means you can't use expressions that end up
> generating lots of digits or else you'll end up with a reduction like
> -0.20778508 BTC {18078.68014392563700916350683 USD}.
>
> Alternatively, Beancount does let you match using the date, assuming that
> is unambiguous.
>
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:52 PM Ben Blount <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Please carefully review the error message. It has been telling you
>> precisely what is wrong each time, though it does require some
>> understanding which I think you now have.
>> This time the lot is not matching exactly.
>> -0.20778508 BTC, cost=CostSpec(number_per=Decimal('18078.87' ... USD
>>
>> You can see the balance it's trying to match against in the same error:
>> 0.20778508 BTC {18078.68014392563700916350683 USD, 2020-11-28},
>>
>> An exact match is required. I have a pull request open
>> <https://github.com/beancount/beancount/pull/589> that would've made
>> this work as you expected it to. Note, I don't know if Martin agrees with
>> me that lot matching should accept small variations, so that pull request
>> might not be merged.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 9:44 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCES1xujaP%2BqZbMFHBXAMnknOpYcOJkGgdcBf3VGFPW8vDg%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/CACGEkZszOgBvRfmfzv5ymuNXyxqXJ-9BmFdKH4yWL9MmTmx2Dg%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZszOgBvRfmfzv5ymuNXyxqXJ-9BmFdKH4yWL9MmTmx2Dg%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/CABieCEQ7YOVhkoG7jDB%2BS8D51MR3fKieDv-6Eu19RVSPQSRRuA%40mail.gmail.com.
