Pushing static images out doesn't take much resources other than bandwidth.

That's low! My list of all funded Bitcoin addresses on a $20/year VPS used 2 TB/month and got a donated upgrade to 50 TB/month last year. Together with my other Bitcoin data projects, it's now using 10 TB/month. But none of those use cloud hosting, unlike the rest of loyce.club (also donated, but the bandwidth costs are much higher).
Either way, that leaves lots of options to grow, and I doubt Bitcointalk will use that much bandwidth for images in the coming years.

The file can only get smaller from lossless compression if the original compression was terrible.

Why don't you compress the image by yourself, and upload the format you want?

It's better to resize the image, 2.5MB is still too much for a forum-sized image.

---

---

A resize-option would be really cool, and even a change-format-option could work. I get that it's convenient for mobile users, and you may even be able to create/test/show different file format for the image, so the user can pick which one to use.

There's no guarantee that lossless compression will automagically shrink your 5MB image to 2.5MB or less. What if the image is already compressed well but has a high resolution? Keep in mind that this service is meant for image hosting for the bitcointalk.org forum, which has a maximum file size limit of 2.5MB. Uploading larger files to the hosting service is pointless since they won't be displayable on the forum, and this would only make things more confusing and complicated for users.

Besides, many modern smartphones come equipped with built-in image compression apps and tools that automatically reduce image sizes before sharing or uploading them online.


I don't have a problem with using lossless image compression on the server side since it can lower bandwidth usage and speed up the loading and rendering of web pages, which benefits users with slower internet connections. However, it doesn't make sense to increase the file size limit above 2.5MB in this case due to the restrictions already in place on the bitcointalk forum.

Joker, I was thinking here, of course users already suggested the donations, and the ads
And also I already saw that you put it in the main post.

I will give my opinion: I am using the service and I like it, very simple and without any problems
I wouldn't mind if there was more than 1 ad, for me you can put more ads, as most of us will only use 1 upload button and then grab the link to the post
I don't know if most agree, but it would be no problem at all to have the ads if it means the maintenance of the site and the value that will ensure the longevity of the service, this is the most important feature for us

I think you can even get an specific ad if you post on Services tab here on Bitcointalk

Hi @joker_josue,
I am wearing the signature campaign for publishing your recently launched helpful tools named TalkImg.com. Also recently updated my previous post. You can see that link here: TalkImg.Com

Very cool service. This has been needed for a long time. I now hope that I remember to use it next time I have a photo to upload. Taking a quick glance at the site, it appears to be much more user friendly on my mobile than other options like Imgur, which I appreciate. I could see this becoming extremely popular here. Thanks for building this.

Send a PM to talk.
Those who have an account will be able to use an API that will allow them to be used in apps. But, I am still working in that field.




As I mentioned earlier, the goal is for images not to be erased. At the time of creation a link is generated, if used the image is deleted, if not used the image will remain.
One of the goals of creating this project was the fact that there were many images on the forum that no longer appeared. That's annoying.




Every help counts! Thanks. Only this management, only made me want to continue. 




Answering in order of the indicated points:
> To ensure the longevity of the project, the ideal is to keep everything on the same server. Because, if something goes wrong, it will be easier to request that the address of the images be edited via BD. But, as I explained before, and based on my knowledge, I can handle 30GB (I say this value because I work on a project that has that in images) without problems. This equates to thousands of images. I would be very happy if we get there.
> The site works on http and httpS. The ideal is to always work on httpS. But, if someone in the link just writes http, everything should work normally.
> No! You have to upload the image. This allows you to prevent abuse of copyrighted images. In turn, all images uploaded to TalkImg can only be used here on the forum.
> I apologize for this issue. I had configured it to only be able to load one image at a time, this helps to reduce spam. By mistake, a configuration element failed that caused this situation. I think it's already resolved. Thanks for the alert.
> Thanks for the QR tip, because this is an image site.  I'll deal with that in the next few days.
> I'm still studying the possibility of using API, maybe soon.
> The server already automatically takes regular backups. I'm still studying extra forms of backups so that everything can be resumed from where it left off. I hope to have news in a few weeks.
> I have no intention of using FTP.




I'm looking into the possibility of providing an API to make this possible for users who have an account.
Anyone who wants to account, please contact me, so I can assess the situation. (I do not guarantee that all applications will be accepted.)

Hope to get in touch with @theymos in the next few days.

This would be easier if implemented in ip.bitcointalk, as it automatically replaces images that can no longer be loaded by others. I wouldn't say the date, but I would say that it had been deleted.
I really have to try to talk to theymos.

I just had a file paused at 39% upload and then seemed to hang.  Eventually I reloaded the website and reuploaded which got me thing of duplicate file checking at upload.

My suggestion would be if a duplicate image were uploaded e.g. this one,



then the first uploader is provided the delete key, but the second, third etc uploaders only get shown the codes that are shown on e.g. this page: https://www.talkimg.com/image/aDCN

Then again if multiple uploaders have uploaded the *exact* same file, then perhaps a file is automatically prevented from being deleted?

In any event, duplicate file checking would reduce file storage sizes.

I don't expect many people to upload the exact same image, although it could happen when someone lost the link to his image. If you want to detect them, a checksum for each image would be best. It can easily be circumvented by changing a pixel, but that doesn't matter anyway.
I don't think the first uploader should be able to delete the file from later uploaders, and later uploaders (this part is very easy to do) shouldn't get a say on the original uploader's image. If I'd have to deal with this, I'd use a checksum and hard link all duplicates. That doesn't consume additional disk space, and each user can still delete their own entry if needed.