So with that disclaimer out of the way, does anyone think that it is possible that prolonged disputes like these might actually end up slowing the widespread adoption of IPv6? With IPv4, the number of potential addresses to have to block to effectively blacklist a site that the recognized powers have deemed offensive is substantially smaller than it could be with IPv6. Even though there may be many v4 IP's available right now, that number is still shrinking daily, and cannot possibly last more than a few more years. With a full-scale move to IPv6, even *hoping* to block an organization by IP would be completely impossible on any sort of time scale that humans could identify with, so would the organizations that are trying to shut off places like the pirate bay be lobbying to try to slow (or even halt) the adoption of IPv6, so that what they are trying to do here doesn't end up becoming completely unworkable? Why? Or why not?
Blocking by IP address appears to be near-impossible now; I fail to see that IPv6 will make it worse.
On the subject of blocking IPv6 hosts, if a /64 (or whatever) is owned entirely by the organisation you want to block, blocking is easy. If it's shared with other users, though, a lot will depend on the host company's willingness to help. Some may somehow force a specific address per client (DHCPv6?) which makes blocking no harder than at present, or be willing to act on take-down requests. With unhelpful host companies, the offending site could try fast-flux DNS techniques to temporary addresses within the local /64. At that point I suspect the whole /64 would be blocked regardless of collateral damage. Alternatively, DNS blocks could be used, with the same effectiveness that we see today.
Ultimately though, the thing to remember is that at some point, people need to know what the present address is. I imagine that the address distribution methods will be somehow disrupted to prevent updates and then the IPs will be blocked. That applies regardless of the underlying protocol!