I guess so, the tendency is towards abolishing the "ß" altogether, the current state of affairs is merely a compromise, which may be rather temporary.
Regarding the "long s", this has been in use in German writing until the early 20th century, as well. One of the best things about "ß" is that there is no consensus what this actually is. Historically, it's a ligature, probably of a long s and a round s, and it can be found in renaissance Italian cursive (e.g., in samples by Palatino). Also, in 17th century type setting, it can be seen as a compositum of long and round s. This also explains, why there is only a lower-case form, as there is also (mostly) only a lower-case long s. So "eszett" or "ß" are probably historically wrong and it was only in Fraktur (non-Latin broken letter type) that "ß" became split into "s" and "z", and ever since, there is this ambiguity. Both "SZ" and "SS" are viable capitalizations, with the former being more authoritative in the mid-20th century and a strong tendency towards the latter (which is about the only form used nowadays).
(Does the ambiguity matter? Not at all. Mind that probably only a minority knows that the ampersand (&) is a ligature of "et", or that "@" is literarily "at" and that you can write "it" the same way. We're perfectly able to use these things without knowing what they are.)
Regarding letter forms, there are plenty sources of worry in German writing: There's Fraktur in books, mostly from the 18th century until 1940 (contrary to common belief, Fraktur was not the preferred typeface of Nazi-Germany, rather they abolished it), there's Schwabacher typeface, which was Latin characters, but still with broken forms, there had been long hand and short hand Kurent cursive, various national forms and epochs of Latin hand writing, even after WW II, etc. Fun!
Regarding the "long s", this has been in use in German writing until the early 20th century, as well. One of the best things about "ß" is that there is no consensus what this actually is. Historically, it's a ligature, probably of a long s and a round s, and it can be found in renaissance Italian cursive (e.g., in samples by Palatino). Also, in 17th century type setting, it can be seen as a compositum of long and round s. This also explains, why there is only a lower-case form, as there is also (mostly) only a lower-case long s. So "eszett" or "ß" are probably historically wrong and it was only in Fraktur (non-Latin broken letter type) that "ß" became split into "s" and "z", and ever since, there is this ambiguity. Both "SZ" and "SS" are viable capitalizations, with the former being more authoritative in the mid-20th century and a strong tendency towards the latter (which is about the only form used nowadays).
(Does the ambiguity matter? Not at all. Mind that probably only a minority knows that the ampersand (&) is a ligature of "et", or that "@" is literarily "at" and that you can write "it" the same way. We're perfectly able to use these things without knowing what they are.)
Regarding letter forms, there are plenty sources of worry in German writing: There's Fraktur in books, mostly from the 18th century until 1940 (contrary to common belief, Fraktur was not the preferred typeface of Nazi-Germany, rather they abolished it), there's Schwabacher typeface, which was Latin characters, but still with broken forms, there had been long hand and short hand Kurent cursive, various national forms and epochs of Latin hand writing, even after WW II, etc. Fun!