Thanks Ben, I was able to go through this documentation and made some
updates to the file.
I wasn't documenting the Buy Posts correctly. I now have it such that it
adds a cost basis with the date at buy time. With this I was able to even
write the transfer as well and bean-check runs clean!
Reference here for folks who visit this thread. (posted a couple of
transactions)
Thanks
Ghanashyam
2020-11-28 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
2020-11-28}
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:Cash -3756.52 USD
2020-12-17 * "Coinbase" "Buy BTC at Coinbase"
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase:BTC 0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
2020-12-17}
Assets:US:BofA:Checking -500.00 USD
2021-01-04 * "Tranfer BTC from Coinbase to CoinbasePro"
Assets:US:Crypto:CoinbasePro:BTC 0.20778508 BTC {18078.87 USD,
2020-11-28}
Assets:US:Crypto:Coinbase: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:Coinbase:BTC -0.02109060 BTC {23707.24 USD,
2020-12-17}
On Mon, 18 Jan 2021 at 22:22, Ben Blount <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 a topic in the
> Google Groups "Beancount" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/beancount/vDX1oA2mJXA/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CACGEkZuPp55sqs5Ei5jRtUXRNx5he2nts_CE-ZjhXq82yRs%2BPw%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/CABieCERk8rcwab2m56u3wdNvyycp_zFuoSLHZpPVO8TkyVObCA%40mail.gmail.com.
