"Many people I talk with don't believe that IPv6 is the future and I commonly hear that they have forcibly disabled it on their computers due to this or that random problem."
It is their choice to make not anyone else's. They could be right. It might not be the future. I am one of those non-believers. I would love an improved protocol but I do not see IPv6 as the right fit. I think it is no coincidence that the providers are having problems with offering it to customers. Networking is complex and error-prone enough without IPv6. It is less so with IPv6? We know what the IPv6 zealots will say. Beware of "analyses" that focus solely on benefits without considering costs.
I think GP was criticizing that this might be the correct choice for them, given that the rest of the world seems to randomly break v6 and somehow it's acceptable.
That also means that you should beware of "analyses" that ignore the costs of staying on v4 and not doing v6.
NAT, split DNS, VPNs, RFC1918 clashes and renumbering... this stuff isn't free, and most of it is totally unnecessary when you have enough address space.
While the above are real costs, beware of promises that IPv6 will remove, reduce or even lower the cost of doing NAT. As long as there is an IPv4 Internet, NAT will be an integral part of any IPv6 deployment.
It will do all of those things in the right circumstances though.
Dual-stacked eyeball ISPs see over 50% of their traffic go via native v6. If they're CGNATing then that corresponds to a substantial drop in the amount of traffic that needs to be CGNATed, and therefore also a corresponding drop in the cost of the hardware needed to do it.
It is their choice to make not anyone else's. They could be right. It might not be the future. I am one of those non-believers. I would love an improved protocol but I do not see IPv6 as the right fit. I think it is no coincidence that the providers are having problems with offering it to customers. Networking is complex and error-prone enough without IPv6. It is less so with IPv6? We know what the IPv6 zealots will say. Beware of "analyses" that focus solely on benefits without considering costs.