发表机构
FIZ Karlsruhe – Leibniz Institute for Information Infrastructure; University of Göttingen; ProbeLab Analytics OÜ（FIZ卡尔斯鲁厄-莱布尼茨信息基础设施研究所; 哥廷根大学; ProbeLab分析有限公司）
机构由 AI 辅助整理，请以论文原文为准。AI 中文总结
本研究通过爬取以太坊网络属性并应用随机森林估算节点能耗，发现可达节点总功耗为415千瓦，较传统方法降低3.9%，并揭示了云服务商和验证者角色的能耗分布差异。
AI 中文摘要
以太坊从工作量证明转向权益证明后，其电力使用量下降了约99.95%。服务提供商仍需报告运营能源使用情况，例如根据欧盟加密资产市场法规（MiCAR）。现有估算要么对每个节点采用一个典型瓦数，要么从聚合监控计数开始。两者都忽略了节点已在点对点网络上公布的属性：客户端软件、ARM或x86硬件、托管位置和验证者角色。我们爬取共识层和执行层，根据这些属性为每个对等节点分配瓦数（使用已发布的测量数据），并使用随机森林估算剩余的不完整对等节点。在来自两次Nebula爬取（2026年6月19日和22日）的6,934个对等节点中，可达节点总计415千瓦，若持续一年则为3.63吉瓦时。对每个对等节点采用相同的Lighthouse+Nethermind x86瓦数，结果为431千瓦。观察到的属性使总量降低了3.9%，主要是因为Hetzner和其他非AWS云上的节点消耗低于该家用台式机数值。AWS占12.2%的对等节点，却占15.6%的瓦数；验证者标记节点占25.7%的对等节点，却占31.4%的瓦数。415千瓦的快照约为剑桥替代金融中心（CCAF）估计的约0.90兆瓦的46%。两者每个节点均约60瓦，因此差距主要在于每个估算包含的节点数量。规则覆盖3,110个对等节点，随机森林覆盖其余3,824个。在隐藏客户端、架构和操作系统的保留标记对等节点上，森林对规则瓦数的平均绝对误差为4.3瓦。游戏台式机上的24小时测量与预测存在差异。减去以太坊客户端不需要的33瓦空闲显卡后，两个差异均降至约19%。
英文摘要
Ethereum's electricity use fell by about 99.95% after the move from proof of work to proof of stake. Service providers still need to report operational energy use, e.g. under the EU Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCAR). Existing estimates either apply one typical wattage to every node or start from aggregated monitoring counts. Both ignore attributes that nodes already advertise on the peer-to-peer network: client software, ARM or x86 hardware, hosting location, and validator role. We crawl the consensus and execution layers, assign each peer a wattage from those attributes using published measurements, and estimate the remaining incomplete peers with a Random Forest. On 6,934 peers from two Nebula crawls (19 and 22 June 2026), reachable nodes sum to 415 kW, or 3.63 GWh if that draw were held for a year. The same Lighthouse+Nethermind x86 wattage on every peer yields 431 kW. Observed attributes lower the total by 3.9%, mainly because nodes at Hetzner and other non-AWS clouds draw less than that home-desktop figure. AWS accounts for 15.6% of watts from 12.2% of peers, and validator-flagged nodes for 31.4% of watts from 25.7% of peers. The 415 kW snapshot is about 46% of the Cambridge Centre for Alternative Finance (CCAF) estimate of about 0.90 MW. Both use about 60 W per node, so the gap is mostly how many nodes each estimate includes. Rules cover 3,110 peers and the forest the other 3,824. On held-out labeled peers with client, architecture, and OS hidden, the forest's mean absolute error against the rule wattage is 4.3 W. Twenty-four-hour measurements on a gaming desktop differ from the predictions. After subtracting a 33 W idle graphics card that Ethereum clients do not need, both differences fall to about 19%.
CommentsPreprint. 12 pages
