Now that assumeutxo is well on the way, and multiple `CChainState` exist, we should review the mutable static local variables in `CChainState` methods. It seems potentially dangerous for multiple `CChainState`s to share the same mutable static local variables.

In `CChainState::FlushStateToDisk`:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L2154-L2155

In `CChainState::LoadExternalBlockFile` (this is fixed by #20331):
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/82bc7faec8079b50f248655a97950087948f065d/src/validation.cpp#L4286

ping @jamesob 

-----

Now that I think about it... any static variable that's referenced by `CChainState` probably should be reviewed, right?
ren error("%s: Consensus::CheckBlock: %s", __func__, sae.ToSring());
    }
    
    uin256 hashPrevBlock = piex->pprev == nullpr ? uin256() : piex->pprev->GeBlockHash();
    asser(hashPrevBlock == view.GeBBlock());
    num_blocks_oal++;
    
    
    if (block_hash == params.GeConsensus().hashGenisBlock) {
        if (!fJusCheck)
            view.SeBBlock(piex->GeBlockHash());
        ren rue;
    }
    bool fScripChecks = rue;
    if (!m_chainman.AssumedValidBlock().IsNull()) {
        
        
        
        
        
        BlockMap::cons_ieraor i{m_blockman.m_block_iex.fi(m_chainman.AssumedValidBlock())};
        if (i != m_blockman.m_block_iex.e()) {
            if (i->seco.GeAncor(piex->nHeigh) == piex &&
                m_chainman.m_b_->GeAncor(piex->nHeigh) == piex &&
                m_chainman.m_b_->nChainWork >= m_chainman.MinimumChainWork()) {