alt Hacker News> I know a decent bit of both worlds so that disconnect in perceptions always amuses me.
Double-entry bookkeeping was from its inception an error-correction code that could be calculated by hand.
Modern databases contain much more powerful error correction methods in the form of transactional commits, so from a pure technical point, double-entry bookkeeping is no longer needed at all; that's why programmers have a hard time understanding why it's there: for us, when we store a value in the DB, we can trust that it's been recorded correctly and forever as soon as the transaction ends.
The thing is, cultural accounting still relies on the concepts derived from double entry bookkeeping as described in the article; all those assets and debts and equity are still used by the finances people to make sense of the corporate world, so there's no chance that they'll fall out of use anytime, at least 'in the context of a company' as you out it.
Now would it be possible to create a new accounting system from scratch that relied on DB transactions and didn't depend on double entry? Sure it can, in fact crypto coins is exactly what happens when computer engineers design a money system unrestricted from tradition. But in practical terms it still needs to relate to the traditional categories in order to be understood and used.
Replies
The crypto model of single entries with "from" and "to" field works well for transactions. For example you move $100 from checking to savings account, something like the following will capture it perfectly.
```json { "from": "Checking", "to": "Savings", "amount": 100 } ```
This is basically what a crypto ledger does.
But the main reason why we need double entry accounting is that not all accounting entries are transfers. For example, is we are logging a sales, cash increases by $100, and revenue increases by $100. What's the "from" here? Revenue isn't an account where account is taken from, it is the "source" of the cash increase. So something like the following doesn't capture the true semantics of the transaction.
```json { "from": "Revenue", "to": "Cash", "amount": 100 } ```
Instead, in accounting, the above transaction is captured as the following.
```json { "transaction": "Sale", "entries": [ { "account": "Cash", "debit": 100, "credit": null }, { "account": "Revenue", "debit": null, "credit": 100 } ] } ```
It gets worse with other entries like:
- Depreciation: Nothing moves. You're recognizing that a truck is worth less than before and that this consumed value is an expense. - Accruals: Recording revenue you earned but haven't been paid for yet. No cash moved anywhere.
The limitation of ledgers with "from" and "to" is that it assumes conservation of value (something moves from A to B). But accounting tracks value creation, destruction, and transformation, not just movement. Double-entry handles these without forcing a transfer metaphor onto non-transfer events.
> from a pure technical point, double-entry bookkeeping is no longer needed at all
Just because databases are transactional doesn't mean the entire system is. Double-entry accounting still helps catch errors.
A concrete example, since people like to think databases dealing with money are especially transactional, when they're not ...
I used to work at a small regional bank. In the course of some network maintenance, I accidentally disrupted the connectivity to an ATM while a customer was doing a transaction.
The next day, our accounting folks caught a problem with reconciliation, and the customer called to follow up as well. My interruption caused a deposit to proceed far enough to take their checks and money, but failed to credit the customer's account.
It's very hard to orchestrate transactions perfectly across multiple organizations and systems. You can't hand-wave this away by pointing at db consistency guarantees. Traditional accounting techniques will catch these errors.
I'm not sure that ATMs even have the ability to communicate certain failure classes back to the acquiring bank. eg, a cash dispenser malfunction is common enough to be mentioned by VISAs network rules explicitly, but as far as I know will almost always require manual reconciliation between the ATM operator and the network.