[Google search results](https://www.google.com/search?q=of+the+last+100+blocks+have+unexpected+version) suggest that our users are more confused than helped by the `<n> of the last 100 blocks
have unexpected version` warning we're printing.

As developers we know the unfortunate reason behind this warning and how "unexpected" should be interpreted in this context, and thus why it is safe to disregard this warning. However, I don't think it reasonable to expect our users to know the historical context here.

In order to not desensitize our users to potentially critical "real" warnings, would it make sense to move this message to the `-debug=validation` log category?
if (pindex->nHeight >= consensusparams.BIP66Height) {
        flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_DERSIG;
    }
    
    if (pindex->nHeight >= consensusparams.BIP65Height) {
        flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY;
    }
    
    if (pindex->nHeight >= consensusparams.CSVHeight) {
        flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_CHECKSEQUENCEVERIFY;
    }
    
    if (IsWitnessEnabled(pindex->pprev, consensusparams)) {
        flags |= SCRIPT_VERIFY_NULLDUMMY;
    }
    return flags;
}
static int64_t nTimeCheck = 0;
static int64_t nTimeForks = 0;
static int64_t nTimeVerify = 0;
static int64_t nTimeConnect = 0;
static int64_t nTimeIndex = 0;
static int64_t nTimeCallbacks = 0;
static int64_t nTimeTotal = 0;
static int64_t nBlocksTotal = 0;
/** Apply the effects of this block (with given index) on the UTXO set represented by coins.
 *  Validity checks that depend on the UTXO set are also done; ConnectBlock()
 *  can fail if those validity checks fail (among other reasons). */
bool CChainState::ConnectBlock(const CBlock& block, BlockValidationState& state, CBlockIndex* pindex,