Would it be completely unreasonable to allow `fundrawtransaction` to use unsafe outputs?

I understand this means the resulting transaction may be invalidated whenever the unsafe output I'm relying one disappears (e.g. because the transaction that produced it was RBF-ed) but in my case that's ok, I'll react to that and re-publish the tree of child transactions accordingly.

But let me know if you think that's too much of a footgun for users, in that case I'll architect my solution differently.
}
}
**
 * Compute smart timestamp for a transaction being added to the .
 *
 * Logic:
 * - If sending a transaction, assign its timestamp to the current time.
 * - If receiving a transaction outside a block, assign its timestamp to the
 *   current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a future timestamp, assign all its (not already
 *   known) transactions' timestamps to the current time.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, before the most recent known
 *   transaction (that we care about), assign all its (not already known)
 *   transactions' timestamps to the same timestamp as that most-recent-known
 *   transaction.
 * - If receiving a block with a past timestamp, but after the most recent known
 *   transaction, assign all its (not already known) transactions' timestamps to
 *   the block time.
 *
 * For more information see CWalletTx::nTimeSmart,
 * https:bitcointalk.org?topic=54527, or
 * https:github.combitcoinbitcoinpull1393.
 *
unsigned int CWallet::ComputeTimeSmart(const CWalletTx& wtx) const
{
    unsigned int nTimeSmart = wtx.nTimeReceived;
    if (!wtx.isUnconfirmed() && !wtx.isAbandoned()) {
        int64_t blocktime;
        if (chain().findBlock(wtx.m_confirm.hashBlock, FoundBlock().time(blocktime))) {
            int64_t latestNow = wtx.nTimeReceived;