1. What is "non-trivial but far from certain"? If operation's chances were as low as my estimation of cryonics I wouldn't bother so "no". With high enough chance "yes".

2. Maybe. I don't really trust my ability to place myself in such hypothetical scenarios and I expect my answer to result more from framing effects than anything else.

3. Sort of.

4. Definitely not.

5. Framing effects etc. I don't think I can reason about this clearly enough.

6. Definitely yes.

So there's one yes. It shouldn't surprise you that I consider cryonics waste of money with negligible chance of success, but I'm a huge fan of SENS, which has realistic chance of significantly reducing worst effects of aging at least.

And back to your arguments:

• 1 - costs/logistics are only relative to chances of success, so this point fails hard.
• 2 - waking up in the future is still worse than waking up now, so it works as partial objection even if you prefer it to never waking up.
• 3 - magnitude of change matters, and future "you" can easily be far outside what you'd still consider "you", so your argument fails
• 4, 5 - I'll leave it up to people who believe this, I consider the entire line of thought delusional