I can't say that I strongly disagree
If you zoom out enough, it may well be so, i.e. shorts become inconsequential (as this is what I think myself). But this assumes there is enough demand in the first place to make naked shorting a losing business as someone who tried to short Bitcoin in late 2016 (if I'm not mistaken) lost around 300 bitcoins only to have his short position liquidated. But with no demand, shorts are just accelerating the process which would go on its own even without them
What kind of "demand" are we talking about? Short term demand, long term demand? Because Bitcoin has not reached its full potential in dark market commerce yet in my opinion
In this case it doesn't matter
Because to make shorting (short selling specifically) a losing business the demand should be sufficient to trigger a forced liquidation of these shorts. As you can see, time is not one of the variables at play here. You just need the price to make an abrupt movement to the upside to catch short traders unprepared. Basically, this is what short squeezes are about, i.e. about making short sellers cover their positions at a loss due to a sudden excess of demand (or have these positions liquidated by the exchange itself)
Zoom out, it would depend on the time-frame.
No, it doesn't. The profits earned as well as losses incurred remain the same irrespective of the timeframe in which they occurred