> they're just not the point being discussed here.

In other words, you are ignoring (not paying attention, leaving aside) an aspect that should be considered.

(You asked for a good-faith conversation, but after these types of replies it gets hard to take you seriously. The quote "It is hard to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on not understanding it" becomes more and more apt with each response you give.)

I mean, I literally asked "which ones". You didn't answer. You can't claim I'm ignoring them if you haven't told me what they are.

I'm not sure how your quote applies, my salary doesn't depend on Bitcoin.

Still here with this nonsense?

Read again. I described an mechanism that you can be a miner of a PoW mechanism and still be able to finance your operation without selling the asset you mined, effectively turning the economic model of it from PoW into PoS, while keeping the horrible externalities and costs of PoW.