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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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 (options.exists("change_type")) {
            if (options.exists("changeAddress") || options.exists("change_address")) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Cannot specify both change address and address type options");
            }
            OutputType out_type;
            if (!ParseOutputType(options["change_type"].get_str(), out_type)) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_ADDRESS_OR_KEY, strprintf("Unknown change type '%s'", options["change_type"].get_str()));
            }
            coinControl.m_change_type.emplace(out_type);
        }
        const UniValue include_watching_option = options.exists("include_watching") ? options["include_watching"] : options["includeWatching"];
        coinControl.fAllowWatchOnly = ParseIncludeWatchonly(include_watching_option, *pwallet);
        if (options.exists("lockUnspents") || options.exists("lock_unspents")) {
            lockUnspents = (options.exists("lock_unspents") ? options["lock_unspents"] : options["lockUnspents"]).get_bool();
        }
        if (options.exists("feeRate")) {
            if (options.exists("fee_rate")) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Cannot specify both fee_rate (" + CURRENCY_ATOM + "/vB) and feeRate (" + CURRENCY_UNIT + "/kvB)");
            }
            if (options.exists("conf_target")) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Cannot specify both conf_target and feeRate. Please provide either a confirmation target in blocks for automatic fee estimation, or an explicit fee rate.");
            }
            if (options.exists("estimate_mode")) {
                throw JSONRPCError(RPC_INVALID_PARAMETER, "Cannot specify both estimate_mode and feeRate");
            }
            coinControl.m_feerate = CFeeRate(AmountFromValue(options["feeRate"]));
            coinControl.fOverrideFeeRate = true;
        }
        if (options.exists("subtractFeeFromOutputs") || options.exists("subtract_fee_from_outputs") )