Yeah even though I responded to peter todd's comment with an idea of how people might cope with the risk he presented, I'm still kinda racking my brain over it.

Like sure 5% probability of spending an old state with no downside risk bad, but maybe when that node ID is reported as having uncoorperative closes that spend an old state no one wants to connect to them, but you can spin up as many nodeIDs as you need to keep trying, so maybe you refuse to allow nodeIDs with no history to join channels above a certain amount, in which case people are incentivized to show a good history, but then hot damn I'm reinventing the credit score here!

Also, I believe the channel cycling attack was mitigated, but not patched so maybe we need this construct anyway? Or maybe we'll fix it one day or something lol.

Then I thought, well what if instead of justice transactions, we try security deposits where if you close the channel before a certain block height, your security deposit is given to the person who didn't "break the lease", but then its really just a justice transaction by another name done a different way and maybe doesn't address Darthcoin's issues with uncoorperative closes? Anyway, surely you could make a covenant that just doesn't allow a channel to close until a certain blockheight which would have the same effect. What's the effect? Lock up your liquidity with an uncooperative partner and that doesn't help multi-party channels where just one person being offline is a problem (but then that's what actuaries are for?)

Anyway, you get the idea, I've been racking my brain on this lmao.