Bizarre, I guess the OP has edited the game because now the game is quite longer and our responses here make no sense. But at any rate, this continuation is I think just an unsound sac. The attack looks hair-raising enough, but it peters out. From the games last move 20...Nxe3 Black is busted. White has the natural response Qe2 and I think Black has a hard time not giving up more material.
DOH! I thought Gambit King's diagram was the OP... *page 2 Pyth, you idiot* oooops... oh well, no harm done, but at any rate, my note above is referring to Gambit King's postion after 20...Nxe3. I strongly disagree with his assessment that "Black has way too much pressure" on the contrary I think Black has run out of steam.
The position you end with in the moves diagrammed above seems interesting to me... I'd love to hear what a stronger player thinks of about it. I'm trying to learn how to analyze positions more accurately and make no pretense to expertise here -- Here's my take:
I think White stands better here because he has a natural attacking pathway along the half-open c-file -- he has an 'extra' pawn at b5 and it's putting a cramp in Black's side.
You asked: "have I developed my pieces well in this opening?" mmm -- yes, maybe, but...
I don't see any obvious errors, and your pieces look more or less activated...but the follow up question is -- A) do you have some idea in mind of what you're trying to accomplish? Development with a simple idea or plan attached to it is better than generic good development IMO. Especially in gambit openings.
I wonder how to proceed here. When I look at the position all I see are things for White to do, and frustrations for Black. White's pieces seem better situated, overall, despite the lack of "development" (that is, the look able to be developed naturally, without a lot of headache)...Black's light square bishop doesn't have much scope at the moment and it isn't obvious to me how to improve it... and the Black N on d7 -- where's it going? White can pretty much force an exchange of dark square bishops (moving Bc1-Ba3) -- exchanging Black's good bishop for White's bad... meanwhile White's light-square bishop has can harass the Black kingside. .
But... Black does have an advantage in development and space on the Kingside. Black needs to play energetically here and make use of his dynamic advantages -- maybe a pawn storm from the Kingside and forgo castling? Or have I gone mad?
I like the gambit and I really find the position interesting -- I posted all this in the hopes of starting a conversation -- if a master comes along and says all my analysis is complete hogwash (or course I hope it isn't), I won't be offended!
Thrusting foward the pawns without castling? The black's game would be mess as it's not really safe anywhere since the queenside is white's. You say black will go for an all out attack on the kingside; well yes this is his only hope, but to me it looks like a stonewall dutch which isn't particularly scary with many extra problems: Black is already cramped on the queenside, he has his extra pawn, the c file is wide open, and the bishop on b7 is not really doing much besisdes further controlling e4 which is not necessary here. Usually black can if he wants to activate his bishop play ...c5 usually with ...dxc4 but here the useful b5 pawn could take en passant. So I don't see how black gets compensation when he's down a pawn and it seems like an inferior stonewall dutch.
Tose were pretty much my thoughts. Basically transposing to a "solid" style opening down a pawn.
And I completely agree that the idea of a6 is much better. Looks like black is trying to play some sort of accelerated benko gambit