On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 8:57 PM, Markus Teufelberger < [email protected]> wrote:
> As far as I understand "triple entry accounting" it extends the 2 standard > entries from "double entry" by a third "transaction ID" entry that is part > of a larger system which (ideally) is public knowledge and can be > independently verified. > Can you explain this with an example? I don't quite understand what that third posting books. It seems to me the only sensible use would be to attach a tag to a transaction that refers to some data (confirmation of exchange?) living outside of it, not a third posting. If a third posting: what's the amount? This poses a few interesting opportunities but also potential issues: > Bitcoin for example has until now close to 43 million transactions > recorded [https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions-total] (and some > of them are not easily decoded or meaningful, so it can be a bit of a > hassle to account for them correctly, but that's besides the point). If > there were a way to encode this dataset into ledger (e.g. transactions > between "Bitcoin:1abcdaddress" accounts) and then referencing the > transactions/addresses in your actual private ledger, this could be of use > for additional validation of transactions you enter, something like having > the entire transaction database of your bank so you can finally make > sense/use of that transaction ID. > Given the scale and the need for constant update, this clearly requires a custom system. Not a good idea to use command-line accounting for this purpose IMO. (But maybe I don't understand what you're trying to do.) > Also it might be a good thing to see some edge/extreme cases of ledger > usage (e.g. calculating all balances of all addresses from Bitcoin genesis > until now) with real world data... > You could easily write a script that spits out generated output and see when it falls on its face. Are there actually some hard limits on what ledger can handle (Bitcoin > transactions are already ~20 GB in binary format, if they get a bit > expanded to fit into the text format of ledger, they might likely grow > beyond 100 GB) size wise? Even outputs of a balance command would be > several dozen MB of data. > > All in all it at least sounds like an interesting experiment - I however > first would like to have some comments about feasability (I know that > reading the data alone would take quite a bit of time, even from SSDs) and > ideas where this might be going (some look-aside database that includes all > transactions, similar to the currency conversion stuff, that gets only > queried if there is a reference in the actual "private" ledger?). > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Ledger" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
