I'm not intimately familiar with the dark net, but I have trouble believing the article's assertion that the dark web is disappearing because it is difficult to use and that uptime has decreased.<p>The dark web has always been difficult to use for an average computer owner. Even with increased difficulty of use there is still a real need for people to use it, and they will continue to do so.<p>Regarding uptime, does it really matter if a dark web site has 99.9% uptime or 80% up-time? Whistleblowers, and drug buyers just need to be able to access it on an occasional basis. I'm pretty sure that neighborhood drug dealers don't have good uptime, either.
TL;DR: "The bits of the dark web who's addresses are publicly known and easily discoverable are fewer in number than they used to be".<p>Hardly a surprising finding. Does not necessarily mean they're "heading for extinction", it could just as plausibly be explained as "they move when their onion addresses land in researcher databases and rely on word-of-mouth between users for findability". It's not like the drug-related bits of the darkweb haven't had many SilkRoad-type warnings to tighten up their opsec. If you're in a researcher's database, you're also most likely in some law enforcement database as well, and should probably not sit in a public library with your laptop unlocked chatting with undercover cops...
This could also be a consequence of people not trusting TOR like the used to after seeing what happened to Ross Ulbricht. Most people who use TOR want privacy and for some, even the slightest inclination of privacy invasion is enough for them to jump ship.