Okay, but I've been hearing for a decade now how cryptocurrencies are immune to regulation. That, by their very nature, they're going to prevent existing govern

Okay, but I've been hearing for a decade now how cryptocurrencies are immune to regulation. That, by their very nature, they're going to prevent existing governments from being able to exercise some types of power that libertarians find objectionable. What I haven't been able to get a straight answer on is exactly which specific types of power. Because as far as I can tell, a government could still levy taxes in BTC. They could still impose whatever financial regulations they wanted on top of BTC. They couldn't force or prevent transactions, but they could still observe them and impose fines (and, ultimately, jail time or asset seizure) on entities who didn't follow the regulations. They could still demand record keeping and reporting from any businesses they wanted, and would still be able to perform audits to ensure compliance. Given that most of the blockchain implementations allow a third party to easily reconstruct transaction histories, quite a few types of regulation seem like they would actually be easier to enforce. As far as I can tell, the only governmental function that cryptocurrencies actually disallow is central banking. That may or may not be a good thing, but either way it doesn't feel to me like a world shaking reclaiming of some fundamental liberty from the clutching tentacles of the Leviathan, and it doesn't seem like it would fundamentally alter the day-to-day experience of participating in the economy. So, what am I missing? What should "not controlled by the government" actually imply, specifically? Or, if that's the wrong way to express the underlying sentiment, what would be a correct statement of the idea?