It's interesting to think a bit about the "why" question, and what could it mean for the future.
ETFBitcoin's linked article for example (very interesting, a bit technical but I think I understood it) argues that if the witness discount was more than 0.25 (4x) then the risk that the network couldn't handle the blocks if the users try to pack arbitrary data into the witness would grow disproportionately. For example, a 0,125 (8x) discount would mean up to 8MB blocks.
We learnt in the recent months that Ordinals inscriptions exactly do what the Segwit creators feared: they pack arbitrary data into the witness and max out the block size (the largest block was 3,9 MB, i.e. almost exactly the maximum Segwit block size).
However, there are also potentially useful use cases of "arbitrary data in the witness". For example, we could think about rollups using this space to maximize transaction density per block. So perhaps, in the longer-term future, a higher discount could become an attractive option to maximize adoption without having to reccur to a "traditional" hard-forked blocksize increase.
The article arguing for the 4x discount is from 2017, 6 years old. Would it's main thesis, that an 8x discount is too dangerous for the network, still be true in 2030, for example? (I know some will now think I'm advocating for a blocksize increase
. I'm not, I'm fine with the 1-4MB limit and think more BTC action should go off-chain or to sidechains. But rollups perhaps could change that picture for me in the very long term.)
Edit:
@cygan do you create these infographics yourself? If yes, I've a slight improvement proposal according what pooya87 wrote. Replace "the signature is included in the transaction data" by "the signature is included in the transaction
inputs". With this slight change I think it's becoming more clear.