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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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,
"       \"NONE\"\n"
            "       \"SINGLE\"\n"
            "       \"ALL|ANYONECANPAY\"\n"
            "       \"NONE|ANYONECANPAY\"\n"
            "       \"SINGLE|ANYONECANPAY\""},
                },
                RPCResult{
                    RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                    {
                        {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "hex", "The hex-encoded raw transaction with signature(s)"},
                        {RPCResult::Type::BOOL, "complete", "If the transaction has a complete set of signatures"},
                        {RPCResult::Type::ARR, "errors",  true, "Script verification errors (if there are any)",
                        {
                            {RPCResult::Type::OBJ, "", "",
                            {
                                {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "txid", "The hash of the referenced, previous transaction"},
                                {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "vout", "The index of the output to spent and used as input"},
                                {RPCResult::Type::STR_HEX, "scriptSig", "The hex-encoded signature script"},
                                {RPCResult::Type::NUM, "sequence", "Script sequence number"},
                                {RPCResult::Type::STR, "error", "Verification or signing error related to the input"},
                            }},
                        }},
                    }
                },
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("signrawtransactionwithwallet", "\"myhex\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("signrawtransactionwithwallet", "\"myhex\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{