what did i do wrong?

What could I have done to get the upper hand?

What could I have done to win?

Just comments and tips would be appreciated.

the better question here is what didnt you do wrong

It's a lack of a plan and getting your pieces involved.  Even 5 Nc3 is it best?  What were your plans for the bishop?  You can have played Bb5+ if he blocks with his bishop now you can play c4 planning Qb3 and pressuring the very weak b-pawn.  Even if he blocks with his knight c4 Qa4 O-O pressures the queenside which your pawn structure is saying you should attack.  Nd2 might be a better spot with the knight dealing with your opponents pin should he play it.

Moved to many pawns at start and didnt develop your pieces

Agreed, plus:

1. Played too many aimless moves in the middlegame.

2. Didn't resign a horribly lost endgame.

 I have seen his syndrome before. I call it "thinks every pawn capture can be avoided with a pawn push" I have seen people play like this I have come to think it's because they don't like to calculate captures. So you can improve your game by simply calculating more!

When you make passive moves that do not improve your position whatsoever you're either giving up or just waiting for your opponent to compromise. Always have some sort of a plan.

Develop your pieces more rapidly.

Don't push your pawns to squares in which they will be taken.

Rooks are worth more than knights...

Resign sooner.

 Don't take my advice on it as I'm not an expert, but looking at the game I don't like your opening as a starting point.  I think 3. e4 instead of Nf3, the d5 pawn needs to be supported, if I was him I'd have advanced with his pawn instead of h6, threatening your knight and forcing you to move (essentially, for you to waste a move), then supported the more advanced pawn.  I think even Nc3 would hav been better than Nf3.

What's up with 6. a4 and 7. b4? it seems like over-extending to me.

9. instead of h4 (I've never seen the V formation pawns work really well so I wouldn't advocat that approach) I would have done bx6 (en passant) as his b5 pawn really limited your mobility, I understand you were trying to limit the movement of his knight, but you could probably have done so more effectively using your black bishop Be3, then bait forward his a6 pawn to allow you to pin the knight using your white bishop and possibly fork his rook

Though all the comments mentioned there defy the strategy I would have taken, which was to focus on a king side attack at that point in time, anticipating his castling on the king side based on his formations and the pieces in his way on the queen side.

13. I would have taken his pawn instead of advancing yours, again, I'd be in favor of a King side attack at this point in time and your pawn is likely to just get in your way at that stage and as you saw, was taken anyway.

16. I don't think I would have taken his bishop, instead, I would have moved the bishop to e6 where he was protected by the pawn and forced him to make the exchange, as well as prevented him from castling on the king side in the mean time, my guess, he would have moved his knight back to its previous position, allowing you to take his pawn with your rook and effectively pinning his other knight in place, he'd likely advance his pawn in response, you'd move back, he might initiate the trade of your bishop for either his or his knight at this point in time, and you'd take his other knight with your black bishop, of course, that's a lot to ask for and so there would be various variations within, but I think keeping the pressure on him is better than easing it with the quick kill, especially since it is going to mobilize your knight.

17. I think you should have taken his pawn with your rook, effectively pinning his knight on the side of the board where he's useless

19. Instead of Rg1 I think you should have done Ne2

By the start of move 23 he's jammed you up and prevented the king side attack while managing to get his queen behind your lines to cause you trouble

24. Instead of castling, I would have done Qe2, preventing what happened from happening

What's up with 27. Kb2?  I don't understand that move.  Then the forward and back in the subsequent moves?  Should have moved rook to the right one square, then jumped the knight into the line of the queen to move over to the right side where he could get through and start making things happen

You might have been able to turn it around if you'd used your knight properly, but really by move 23 things were tough and you were going to have a very difficult time making any progress.  You needed to tear down some of his defenses and create space to work/openings on the king side earlier on in the game is my opinion.

you need a more developed opening!

Use a tactics trainer to simply get better at tactics.  You blundered several times on an obvious level, imo.

You also had several aimless moves.  37. Bd2 and then 37 Be1??  What purpose could that sequence possible have served?  You have to think about what move your opponent will make, and you don't seem to do that much.  After 37. Bd2 of course Black will protect his pawn or move it in some way, and you lose time basically doing nothing by moving the same piece twice in a row on the same diagonal, and that piece isn't really doing much at all.

I also agree with those who said work to develop your pieces faster.  Material and space don't mean much if your army is on the back rank waiting to be devoured.

you moved your king back and forth for apparently no reason: you just need to make a plan for how you are going to improve the position of your pieces.

I agree too many pawn moves but the a4 move is useful because it stops the pawns coming down with b5.

Don't let anyone tell you that it is wrong not to resign. You chose when you resign, even if the endgame is hopelessly lost.

You need to look for your opponent's threats and counter them instead of just doing your own thing.

Actually taking the knight with the rook was probably best at that point because the opponent attacked the queen and the bishop a second time on the same move. It is better to trade a rook for a minor piece than to lose a minor piece.

It is not wrong to continue playing instead of resigning, that is the choice of the player.

Opened up too Many Pawns Therfor Making your king vulrnerable and Slowing your Tempo

imo your second move  2:D5, was useless.. lowering your centre control power and weaking your pawn for more defences

Hey bud, first off I think you jumped too far ahead of yourself by pushing the pawn up so far in the very beginning. Also you missed 2 el passet(correct me if I am wrong) moves, that I would have definitely capitalized on. Especially in the beginning, it would have never allowed your opponent to get such a strong pawn chain. hope this helps, we all make mistakes. If you do not know what "el passet"  is, definitely look it up. Analyze the beginning for sure and get a strong opening and stick to it till you learn it perfect, then learn more openings.  Also, a knight for a rook is not a good trade, only when you have no other options.