Beancount Precision & Tolerances
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lgHxUUEY-UVEgoF6cupz2f_7v7vEF7fiJyiSlYYlhOo/edit>
Beancount can be smart about finding the original lot when reducing. If you
do it by price it must be exact. If you do it by date, it must be exact.
Either way it must be unambiguous in the end. For multiple lots in a single
day you'd need to provide both cost and date. Tolerances and precision are
not in any way involved when matching lots.
Please look carefully at your transaction, it makes no sense. Remember
Beancount has no idea that you are moving the same lot to CoinbasePro so
trying to put a posting like this will not work:
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {2020-11-28}.
This has no cost attached to it.
Please review the docs provided in earlier replies, I think they will help
you if you take the time to grok them fully.
On Mon, Jan 18, 2021 at 10:12 PM Ghanashyam Prabhu <[email protected]>
wrote:
> 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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CABieCEQ7YOVhkoG7jDB%2BS8D51MR3fKieDv-6Eu19RVSPQSRRuA%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/CACGEkZuPp55sqs5Ei5jRtUXRNx5he2nts_CE-ZjhXq82yRs%2BPw%40mail.gmail.com.
