> can compel the bank directly, no one can "force" the blockchain do to anything that's not programmed to do

This doesn't work with banks outside a court's jurisdiction. That doesn't stop enforcement.

We already have tools that informally designate tainted versus untainted wallets. Incorporating that into the law wouldn't be that difficult nor, I suspect, controversial.

This is the issue though. Reserve banks doesnt want money flowing out of SA to any organisation it cannot compel.

Enter the exchange control laws from the 60s that still limit capital flow out of SA.

1m ZAR per annum per person(~70k USD) this includes things like Netflix subscriptions, Amazon orders etc.

but did stop enforcement... swiss banks were for many years never disclosing and it had stopped enforcement in many case... this only has been changed in recent years... birkenfeld disclosures led to no more american clients out of american regulation, swiss signing FACTA, similar thing.

> did stop enforcement... swiss banks were for many years never disclosing

As you say, there was a delay, not a stoppage.

no, stoppage for many century until policy change. policy remain a stoppage, just it has removed.

They can't compel a bank outside their jurisdiction. If your crypto is in Coinbase and you convert it to USD and then send it in to South Africa when you need to convert to the local currency & buy something, it seems like you'll be okay.

I suppose the issue will be getting you paycheck $$ from South Africa into Coinbase (or wherever)

They cam force the those who control access to specific assets on the chain to do something in the exact same way they can force a bank to do something.