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In my (unpublished) [code changes](https://github.com/brakmic/bitcoin/commit/0b3ee615491edf6f542631bf6ae6f72eac406550) all raw pointers got replaced with **shared_ptr**s but kept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 RPCHelpMan{"sethdseed",
                "\nSet or generate a new HD wallet seed. Non-HD wallets will not be upgraded to being a HD wallet. Wallets that are already\n"
                "HD will have a new HD seed set so that new keys added to the keypool will be derived from this new seed.\n"
                "\nNote that you will need to MAKE A NEW BACKUP of your wallet after setting the HD wallet seed." +
        HELP_REQUIRING_PASSPHRASE,
                {
                    {"newkeypool", RPCArg::Type::BOOL,  "true", "Whether to flush old unused addresses, including change addresses, from the keypool and regenerate it.\n"
                                         "If true, the next address from getnewaddress and change address from getrawchangeaddress will be from this new seed.\n"
                                         "If false, addresses (including change addresses if the wallet already had HD Chain Split enabled) from the existing\n"
                                         "keypool will be used until it has been depleted."},
                    {"seed", RPCArg::Type::STR,  "random seed", "The WIF private key to use as the new HD seed.\n"
                                         "The seed value can be retrieved using the dumpwallet command. It is the private key marked hdseed=1"},
                },
                RPCResult{RPCResult::Type::NONE, "", ""},
                RPCExamples{
                    HelpExampleCli("sethdseed", "")
            + HelpExampleCli("sethdseed", "false")
            + HelpExampleCli("sethdseed", "true \"wifkey\"")
            + HelpExampleRpc("sethdseed", "true, \"wifkey\"")
                },
        [&](const RPCHelpMan& self, const JSONRPCRequest& request) -> UniValue
{
    std::shared_ptr<CWallet> const wallet = GetWalletForJSONRPCRequest(request);
    if (!wallet) return NullUniValue;
    CWallet* const pwallet = wallet.get();
    LegacyScriptPubKeyMan& spk_man = EnsureLegacyScriptPubKeyMan(*pwallet, true);
    if (pwallet->IsWalletFlagSet(WALLET_FLAG_DISABLE_PRIVATE_KEYS)) {
        throw JSONRPCError(RPC_WALLET_ERROR, "Cannot set a HD seed to a wallet with private keys disabled");
    }