managing malicious state peers for catchup requests

In catchup requests, If the dishonest state peer is at the top of the peer list, it can slow down the consensus as the validation of its responses will fail every time. This should be handled by moving the dishonest state peer to the back of the list or maybe removing it.

- need specific requirements to mark the peer as malicious
- remove that peer from the list of peers or maybe move it at the back of list
- if all the peers are malicious then what should happen?

Trace the catchup request flow, including peer ordering and response validation, to identify where a peer can be classified as malicious. First resolve the requirements for marking, removing or deprioritizing peers and for handling the case where all peers are malicious. Done means the selected policy is implemented and catchup behavior remains defined when validation repeatedly fails.

Written by the indexing model from the issue text.