In the White Paper , Satoshi assumed the mining market would stay open.
Error 1: ASICS closed the mining market to the rich elite only.
No he didn't.
He already knew that at some point there will be 'larger' server farms who are mining. And that a single individual won't mine in the future.
And neither is the market accessible to the 'rich elite' only.
Anyone can start mining with a relatively low budget.
Low budget -> low income.
High budget -> high income.
FTFY
Low budget -> Basically No Income if not in the Loss category
Your confusion is only outpaced by your Stupidity.

What you are saying doesn't make sense.
Either it is profitable or it is not.
That you won't earn much with almost no investment, should be obvious.
Error 2: Nodes processing transactions for free are in short supply, if any.
Of course this is due to the energy waste, making free transactions impracticable.
No, they aren't.
There are currently ~9100 nodes online.
And how many of those 9100 process transactions for FREE all of the Time?
Because there are some people that would like that, bob.Each node does process and relay them for free.
You don't need to pay nodes for processing / relaying transactions.
What kind of question is that

But you were probably refering to the miner 'wasting' energy, right ?
Well.. this energy isn't wasted either. It is absolutely necessary to guarantee the integrity and security of the bitcoin network.
Another reason, you're clueless , you actually believe that nonsense.
~4 pool operators guarantee the integrity and security of the bitcoin network , energy expend is irrelevant in their power.
No. Not 4 pool operator.
You seems to have a big lack of knowledge regarding this topic.
The miner secure the network.. not the pool.
If a pool shuts down, the miner will switch to another one.
Miners are securing the network. Not the pools.
You think Bitcoin will survive on transaction fees alone
when Bitcoin Devs want the majority of transaction in LN offchain network
Don't want to increase onchain scaling of bitcoin
There are proposals to scale on-chain.
But off-chain is necessary too.
Segwit, schnorr, .. all contribute to better scaling - on chain.
If you are refering to the dumbest possible way to 'scale' - increasing blocksize - then you are wrong because increasing the block size is not scaling, it is postponing the problem.
Off-chain scaling is the most elegant way of allowing a big userbase to enter BTC.
Are of the mind totally devoid of economic reasoning that expects people to pay insane transaction fees ,
when cheaper network just as secure are available.
There is not a single crypto currency which is even close to being as secure as bitcoin.
This statement shows how delusional you are.
But please.. name 1 currency which is close to being as secure as bitcoin.