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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
{
    return{{RPCResult::Type::NUM, "confirmations", "The number of confirmations for the transaction. Negative confirmations means the\n"
               "transaction conflicted that many blocks ago."},
           {RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "generated", "Only present if transaction only input is a coinbase one."},
           {RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "trusted", "Only present if we consider transaction to be trusted and so safe to spend from."},
           {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "blockhash", "The block hash containing the transaction."},
           {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "blockheight", "The block height containing the transaction."},
           {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "blockindex", "The index of the transaction in the block that includes it."},
           {RPCResult::Type::NUM_TIME, "blocktime", "The block time expressed in " + UNIX_EPOCH_TIME + "."},
           {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction id."},
           {RPCResult::Type::ARR, "walletconflicts", "Conflicting transaction ids.",
           {
               {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The transaction id."},
           }},
           {RPCResult::Type::NUM_TIME, "time", "The transaction time expressed in " + UNIX_EPOCH_TIME + "."},
           {RPCResult::Type::NUM_TIME, "timereceived", "The time received expressed in " + UNIX_EPOCH_TIME + "."},
           {RPCResult::Type::STR, "comment", "If a comment is associated with the transaction, only present if not empty."},
           {RPCResult::Type::STR, "bip125-replaceable", "(\"yes|no|unknown\") Whether this transaction could be replaced due to BIP125 (replace-by-fee);\n"
               "may be unknown for unconfirmed transactions not in the mempool"}};
}
static RPCHelpMan listtransactions()