I can’t find any good statistics either, so I did not comment on any specifics. I am simply wary of overly specific qualifications with no obvious reason for their specificity; most often, these sorts of arguments are made in order to mislead readers. I don’t know what the actual numbers are.
All I can say is that from personal experience when working at a registrar and DNS service provider, the number of people asking about and requesting DNSSEC is increasing all the time, and show no signs of decreasing. Also, all registries (i.e. TLDs) are also all pushing for registrars and DNS service providers to provide DNSSEC, so there is demand from both sides. Note: I do not have any financial incentive to push DNSSEC; in fact, strictly speaking, DNSSEC makes my job harder.
Also, as I have mentioned before, I have never seen anyone argue against DNSSEC with any persistence (in industry interest groups, at conferences, etc). Except you, here on HN. And you really seem to have it in for DNSSEC, even going so far as to keep making arguments against the crypto, not only while it was obvious that it could (and would) be fixed, but even making the same argument after it was actually fixed. You keep shifting your arguments, but keep arguing against DNSSEC with whatever you can find. This does not make you look credible. And your sole remaining argument, that DNSSEC has low usage, is not a very good one, if it is in fact the case that the usage is actually (on the whole) increasing.
All I can say is that from personal experience when working at a registrar and DNS service provider, the number of people asking about and requesting DNSSEC is increasing all the time, and show no signs of decreasing. Also, all registries (i.e. TLDs) are also all pushing for registrars and DNS service providers to provide DNSSEC, so there is demand from both sides. Note: I do not have any financial incentive to push DNSSEC; in fact, strictly speaking, DNSSEC makes my job harder.
Also, as I have mentioned before, I have never seen anyone argue against DNSSEC with any persistence (in industry interest groups, at conferences, etc). Except you, here on HN. And you really seem to have it in for DNSSEC, even going so far as to keep making arguments against the crypto, not only while it was obvious that it could (and would) be fixed, but even making the same argument after it was actually fixed. You keep shifting your arguments, but keep arguing against DNSSEC with whatever you can find. This does not make you look credible. And your sole remaining argument, that DNSSEC has low usage, is not a very good one, if it is in fact the case that the usage is actually (on the whole) increasing.