When I face attacks like this, I try to be patient, stick to my guns, knowing my opponent will eventually have a weaker position once I've made it through the initial onslaught.
I think you made some moves without supporting your own pieces that were your downfall, unfortunately. Both 16. ... Bc2 and 22. ... Bg3 were bishop attacks without any coverage from your other pieces, and both were lost as a result.
Each pawn-move is a serious commitment, simply because those pieces can't go backward. On the other side, pawns are needed to protect squares from your opponent's pieces. Here, in the game, I would say you did well until giving up the light-square Bishop on c2-square. It could be protected by playing an "in-between" move - 17...Bd3 - before capturing the c4-Knight. In that case Black would be much better, speaking from positional/strategical point of view: you'd have very good Bishop on d3-square, while White has weakened his both flanks by moving his pawns without any good reason (means - there must be an easy access for Black pieces, in one or another way, at some point).
PS: The way you entered with your light-squared Bishop and with the Knight (on c4) - should be an example of how that pawn-wall of White is nothing but a serious weakness.
Several times during this embarrassing loss, I asked myself, "What's the point of developing my pieces when my opponent has created a wall of pawns that just keeps marching ahead? It's Pawn Suicide (tm), and so shouldn't I fight fire with fire?" I didn't, and here's what happened: