Do we need to describe the implementation details in the docs? I'd prefer something shorter that just nodes "if there are conflicting spends of wallet outputs, these may be counted twice, resulting in an incorrect balance".

Related issue: #8183.

I don't see these as implementation details, I just think this just a basic description of what the two balances represent. I could remove the extra help text and text turn it into a code comment, if there is a reason to thing that more vague documentation would be better here, but I'd be curious to know advantages you think this could have.

I had the same impressions like @TheBlueMatt. Is very technical and deeper connects the implementation with the documentation, means, if we change the implementation, we may need to update the docs (or remove which would be a step backwards then).

Ok, I moved details from the RPC help string to a code comment in 5a00659. I also added a broader warning about the account parameter since Matt and Alex pointed out that only describing one potential problem might imply that there are no other problems we know about (which apparently there are in #8183, #3816, #7597, #6042).

ACK

ACK 5a00659.

Also assigning 0.14, as this fixes documentation.