Beating 1. d4 - Any recommendations?

maybe try an indian game like the Kings indian but its really hard to play and I ain't good at that opening. I usually play d5 and play a queen's gambit declined

@1

"I am an aggressive 1. e4 player who looks for attacking positions."
++ Who were the most aggressive players? Tal, Fischer, Kasparov. What did they play against 1 d4? Mostly King's Indian Defense, also Grünfeld Indian Defense, Nimzovich Indian Defense, Benoni Defense, Queen's Gambit Accepted, Tarrasch Variation, Slav Defense, Meran Variation.

"I have already tried the Dutch (1… f5)"
++ Dutch is dubious. 1...f5 does not develop and weakens as you have experienced.

"playing 1… d5 but there are a lot of sidelines for white that I don’t know how to counter."
++ If you do not know how to counter, then think.
The essence of chess is thinking, not knowing.

looking for attacking positions?

The Grunfeld. The full Tarrasch and the Semi-Tarrasch

NID and BID are the two best objectively, and I've been having great fun playing the Nimzo-Dutch lines and destroying White kingside castles. If the NID/BID complex is (somehow) not to your liking, Grunfeld and Semi-Slav are your next best options.

There's a book titled Attack With Black that covers the Benko Gambit. It also covers the Blumenfeld Gambit and Vaganium Gambit for when white varies so early the Benko Gambit isn't allowed. The Trompowsky is also covered for when white plays 1 d4 Nf6 2 Bg5. Anytime black plays 1...Nf6 against 1 d4, which players playing black tend to do when headed for a Nimzo, Bogo, King's Indian Defense, Grunfeld, Benoni and whatever else, white can play the Trompowsky, so black will need to have something prepared against it too.

How about the King's Indian? Maybe get Vassilios Kotronias' five volume series on the King's Indian: https://chess.co.uk/products/kotronias-on-the-kings-indian-vol-1-to-5-vassilios-kotronias-5-books-hardback

The 2500 pages of these five volumes should cover everything you need to know about this opening.

Last time I checked, that's not how these openings are called.

I mean, the Nimzo-Indian was named after Nimzowitsch (Nimzovich), and the Grunfeld is an Indian Game, so nothing here is incorrect, it's likely just language-based naming convention discrepancies.

@8

The men were called Nimzovich and Grünfeld and the defenses they contrived were Indian Defenses.

These are true facts. Another true fact is that those opening names that you wrote are simply made up (by you).

Inventing new names for well-known openings is completely ridiculous. You throw history and common sense out of the window, and what for?

I would recommend kid or 1c5 the benoni

I like the King's Indian, it gives you aggressive and attacking positions in most of the lines and it's never boring

All opening names are made up and invented, what do you think? It only happens that, for some reason, a name or an other will remain as the most commonly used name, but there is no official authority behind it.

For an example, back in the 90s happened a raise of interrest/popularity for the following defense:

1.e4-d6 2.d4-c6!?

Some called it "Czech variation of the Pirc Defense" while others named it "Universal Defense" (since you would then play 1...-d6 vs e4 and d4 every time), and others gave it Caro-Kann related names. I don't know which name "won" in the end, but various publications used each name... Did anyone claim anyone was "ridiculous"? No.

There is nothing ridiculous anywhere, only idiomatics and languages stuff that evolves with time, trends and fashions.

Chess titles don't grant authority over opening names. One may try out a name, and it'll be successful or not, depending on various factors. No harm in that, hence, no need to insult anyone.

As for "beating 1.d4" (or any other White frist move), this is kinfa a silly quesrion when everyone knows Black needs first to equalize before caring for any advantage. Anything transiting in one move from +0.40 to -0.40 would not be genius play from Black but a blunder from White.

Otherwise, the question is similar to "How can I win an equal endgame?".

Two solutions: you keep playing moves that maintain equality and hope for a blunder you can't force to happen, or you play a losing move, in the hope that your opponent won't reply correctly and turns the endgame into winning for you. There is just no way you can force it into a win by sheer will.

@11

"You throw history and common sense out of the window, and what for?"
++ When Nimzovich fled from Russia to Denmark, a mistake was made in the German transliteration of his name in his passport: it should have been Niemzowitsch and it was written Nimzowitsch. The English transliteration is Nimzovich.
When Nimzovich died from pneumonia on 16 March 1935 his brother Bernhard wrote a letter requesting the world of chess to thank his brother by naming the openings and variations he created with his name. His name was Nimzovich/Nimzowitsch/Niemzowitsch, not 'Nimzo'. It is a matter of respect.

Grünfeld (literally: 'Green Field') is written with ü, and should otherwise be transliterated as Gruenfeld.

True that : ü (alt+0252) is often written ue especially when the KB has no direct key to it.

Indian defenses got named so, because in Indian Chess, one can't push a pawn two squares. And well, in so called "Indian Defenses", one often delay any such double step push for a while, and play pawn moves such as d6, g6, b6 only, as if double step moves were not available.