While working on this PR https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18570 I ran into a bit confusing situation where in one function a **CWallet reference** was expected while two others dealt with **CWallet pointers**. My initial reaction was: `let's harmonize them by making them references`. However, not being part of the PR itself I did't change anything and completed the PR first.

Now, after having analyzed the `rpcwallet.cpp` code I came to the conclusion that:

* converting them all into references is not the solution as they're originally **shared_ptr**s
* but also: there is no (visible) reason why every RPC function should begin like this:

```cpp
std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const pwallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
const CWallet* const pwallet = wallet.get();
```

This clearly defeats the purpose of shared pointers for no obvious reason. *Maybe I am missing something?*

In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept their original names (that is, *pwallet*). In the end, they're pointers too, so the most of the original code remained untouched.

However, some of the helper functions couldn't be changed because external code is accessing them and I didn't want to make this task "virulent". So I introduced new ("Ref") variants that expect **shared_ptr** parameters, namely: 

```cpp
void EnsureWalletRefIsUnlocked(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>);
bool EnsureWalletRefIsAvailable(const std::shared_ptr<CWallet>, bool avoidException);
```

I have tested the code, with python and boost-tests, and could not find any errors. 
But before opening a PR I would like to open a discussion about this. 

Is there any reason to keep on working with raw pointers when every function call actually begins with *shared_ptr*s?

Regards,
}
    
    if (nFrom > (int)ret.size())
        nFrom = ret.size();
    if ((nFrom + nCount) > (int)ret.size())
        nCount = ret.size() - nFrom;
    const std::vector<UniValue>& txs = ret.getValues();
    UniValue result{UniValue::VARR};
    result.push_backV({ txs.rend() - nFrom - nCount, txs.rend() - nFrom }); 
    return result;
},
    };
}
static RPCHelpMan listsinceblock()
{
    return RPCHelpMan{"listsinceblock",
                "\nGet all transactions in blocks since block [blockhash], or all transactions if omitted.\n"
                "If \"blockhash\" is no longer a part of the main chain, transactions from the fork point onward are included.\n"
                "Additionally, if include_removed is set, transactions affecting the wallet which were removed are returned in the \"removed\" array.\n",
                {
                    {"blockhash", RPCArg::Type::STR, RPCArg::Optional::OMITTED_NAMED_ARG, "If set, the block hash to list transactions since, otherwise list all transactions."},
                    {"target_confirmations", RPCArg::Type::NUM,  "1", "Return the nth block hash from the main chain. e.g. 1 would mean the best block hash. Note: this is not used as a filter, but only affects [lastblock] in the return value"},
                    {"include_watchonly", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "true for watch-only wallets, otherwise false", "Include transactions to watch-only addresses (see 'importaddress')"},
                    {"include_removed", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "true", "Show transactions that were removed due to a reorg in the \"removed\" array\n"
                                                                       "(not guaranteed to work on pruned nodes)"},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::ARR, "transactions", "",