What is the right way to evaluate proof-of-work energy use in Kaspa?

The meaningful question is not 'PoW versus zero energy' but 'what security guarantee does this energy purchase?' Energy criticism of proof-of-work often treats lower consumption as automatically better, but that framing skips the key variable: what the energy actually buys. Because Kaspa's GHOSTDAG directs all mining work toward security rather than discarding parallel blocks, the relevant measure is how much security each unit of computation provides — not the raw energy number in isolation. For a beginner, this reframes the debate: judging Kaspa's energy footprint means asking whether miners are getting maximum security value from every unit of work spent.