I am unhappy to see NAT-like ideas. This is all because of people not wanting to migrate, to upgrade, to spend their time on IPv6.

Also please note that these NATs the article talks about are not NATs to hide end-user networks behind one world-visible IPv6 addresses. These are supposed to aid with the transition when part of the world will be IPv4 only and part IPv6 only. Unless everyone migrates to dual-stack (even with public IPv6 address and private/RFC1918 IPv4 address behind an IPv4 NAT), there will be problems. Always.

I do understand your point of view here - however no IPv6 provider will give you one single IPv6 address. Every customer will get at least his own 64bit block of addresses - nearly unlimited address space for a single person. Your point of view represents IPv4-only-view. Nowadays people use NATs because of the lack of IPv4 addresses and yes - you will not get more than one, unless you spend some extra money on it.