Reconciliation window: closing balance distorted and reconciliation date

[Jannick Asmus]

Elizabeth,

On 05.05.2008 22:53, Elizabeth Dodd wrote:
> On Tue, 6 May 2008, Jannick Asmus wrote:
>> Thanks for the hint, but the question I have brought up is rather about
>> "freezing transactions" in GnuCash. This applies to all transactions
>> involving P&L and balance accounts and I hope that the feature will not
>> be restricted to assets such as bank accounts and, e.g., receivables.
> 
> Mike had some very good reasons why you cannot "freeze" anything in a computer 
> record.
> If you want it "frozen" you would need a notary service to take a hash of your 
> data (etc) because anything can be altered by someone with knowledge and 
> access to the data.

you are right. For me there are basically three questions in this area:

1. How do I avoid unintentional alterations of transactions if this is 
possible, e.g., by simply hitting on a confirmed transaction ('c') in 
the journal? I "bend" the reconciliation feature in GC to prevent this - 
and BTW some situations, too, in which GC crashes for some reason, 
because it thinks that something has been altered.


2. How can GC become an accounting software as accepted as commercial 
accounting programs - not only for users, but for local tax authorities 
as well? One of the standard argument given in these discussions in 
order to reject GC is that entries in GC can be easily altered - 
intentionally and unintentionally. That the requirement is not quite 
compatible with OpenSource is evident.


3. Where was the problem for other users if the balancing amount in the 
reconciliation window would be changed from "total" to "to date/actual" 
(I am not sure whether this is correctly translated from German where it 
reads "Gesamt" and "Aktuell"). Is there really any substantial 
difference? Honestly, I cannot see any. But perhaps I am missing 
something here.


As I have given an answer to 1. for myself and 3. could be a request of 
recommendation, 2. is left to the community to tackle with.


I hope I could make my point a bit clearer with these lines. But, 
Elizabeth, thanks for your reply.


J.