I don't disagree with you.
I was trying to point out that this being a trade on a futures contract, not a stock, the summary was wrong in saying the total value of the trade was 69 trillion USD. When I said this is the "maximum they could lose" this is a theoretical upper bound which - as you rightly point out - could never be reached in reality.
In any case all this is predicated on this being a genuine and intentional order which was filled and honoured by the exchange. I never claimed it was. It seems pretty to clear to me that this is unintentional (either a fat finger or a technical screw-up) and even if the exchange treated it as genuine order for 4 billion odd contracts, then there wouldn't have been any where near enough liquidity to fill the order. So I'm not "trying too hard to explain something" - I was merely picking up on a couple of factual issues around futures trading that most commenters seemed to have missed as they don't realise it's not the same thing as direct trading in stocks.