[cts1]

There's no redundancy. Imagine you have 2 buckets, you reach into bucket A and grab some cash and put it in bucket B. $x dollars leaving bucket A is entry part 1, $x dollars entering bucket B is entry part 2. That's all it is. I honestly don't understand what single entry is by comparison - it sounds like losing an essential attribute of the transaction.

[mrkeen]

"Two sources of truth" is an anti pattern in computing and isn't redundancy. Use replication or backups for that.

You can't imagine simpler than what you described because it's single entry.

Double-entry is twice as complicated, makes sense only to accountants and not to computing people. Your example of 1 transaction would be doubly-kept as some nonsense like

  BucketA revenue:$x CR cash:$x CR
  BucketB revenue:$x DB cash:$x DB

[jes5199]

no. single entry is when you track BucketA’s balance without regard to other buckets at all

[teaearlgraycold]

Single would be recording the two accounts, one being the source account and the other the destination, and a quantity.

[jes5199]

single entry is like a receipt at a store, is says what you owed and what you paid, but there’s no “other side” that is getting credited or debited the same amount