To be honest I will wait for a month or even few months before I will use bitcoin gold. I feel like there is something shady behind the project, some devs are anonymous and that brings my concerns
Nop! Nothing is shady. Satoshi is anonymous, don't pay attention to guys here. It is open source, actually btg is unique (as far as I'm aware) in having a pool software open sourced! And guess what? The devs have put some codes there to get a 0.005 share which can be removed by means of few minutes, and yet yellow media plus some ignorant users are saying it is some kind of a scam!
It is not, how can an open-source project be a scam after all?
I admit, devs privately mined some 200K coins or so (I suppose) so what? It means people (legacy bitcoin owners) have %99.9 of the coins and there is absolutely no pump and dump threat unlike most of the altcoins. I think other than their obvious interests, devs have chosen this strategy to stabilize the difficulty and other issues.
On the other hand, the core idea, getting rid of ASICs, is very promising and important. Any honest crypto advocate (i.e. no bitcoin enthusiast) should agree that ASIC is a crack against cryptography, it has always been a crack, the only crack against crypto. Satoshi made a mistake by choosing an algorithm with a small memory footprint that a neob could predict its future: being 'ASICed'! And now look at bitcoin, it is dominated by Bitmain and Chinese giant farms and is far from a truly decentralized ecosystem.
I am strongly supporting the idea of throwing away bitcoin's vulnerable, useless hashing algorithm and if bitcoin gold do not succeed because of its developers mistakes or anything, I think we have to retry this experience by another fork attempt in the right direction.
I was thinking along the same lines. I think it will come in the future, but I doubt this particular crew is going to pull it off.
Talking about the future, it is what we make, imo, so, if you are really in the same lines, you should take your part and do something about it. As of my plan, I'm just following this one, btg (as well as bcc+), learning and planning more.
For now I think we should give more both time and space to btg team but I have already been convinced that they won't accomplish their mission mainly because of one important point they have missed: It is not a simple technical problem to be solved by a handful of programmers,
it is about money for the god sake! Tens of billions of dollars are in the stake and the stakeholders are ones who live in the limits, on the edges( of everything, technology, law, morality, ... ), they are reckless, ambitious, cruel and aggressive.
Look at this hype about a few lines of codes in a bonus open-source pool software, which can simply be commented out or tons of articles and comments about 0.01 percent privately mined coins. It is not just a misunderstanding or a public paranoia, it is a systematic attack against btg managed by people who are benefiting from the current situation in the crypto ecosystem. BTG guys obviously where not ready for this flood and they are failing because of it. They need more sympathy and support from the community but if they supposedly fail, the strategy, improving bitcoin by making it ASIC resistant, is not what we should point our fingers toward to blame, it is about business and organisation.
Some immature perceptions of mine:
1- As I remember, @GMaxwell recently has admitted the possibility of this improvement, I think there are other prominent figures ready for committing to the idea, before the kick start, btg team, should have convinced them to become more active and supportive.
2- I don't know, but 200K coin was too much for a confident project team. I mean if they were sure enough they didn't need that much of reward. Actually I'm against such tactics for this special case, forking btc. It prepares ground for scam accusations and a lot of enemies are waiting to play in such a ground.
3- Open source pool software was a brilliant idea that ruined by the dev fee lines in the code, but without that flaw it was not enough, anyway. They should have come with more.
4- Media coverage was poor, mainstream was against btg.
5-Personally I think choosing Equihash was not a wise decision, instead I prefer a mild improvement in SHA2 by adding a DAG navigation step in each cycle, this way we can reuse current wallets and other pieces of codes in the btc ecosystem by a few lines of hack. I prefer hacking to rewriting or reassembling.
So if this one fails the second attempt should be carefully planned and executed with no pre/private mining, more tools and features and probably a more smart algorithm hacking strategy and most importantly, more community/celebrity support.