[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?
int64_t nFeeDelta;
            file >> tx;
            file >> nTime;
            file >> nFeeDelta;
            CAmount amountdelta = nFeeDelta;
            if (amountdelta) {
                pool.PrioritiseTransaction(tx->GetHash(), amountdelta);
            }
            TxValidationState state;
            if (nTime + nExpiryTimeout > nNow) {
                LOCK(cs_main);
                AcceptToMemoryPoolWithTime(chainparams, pool, state, tx, nTime,
                                           nullptr , false , 0 ,
                                           false );
                if (state.IsValid()) {
                    ++count;
                } else {
                    
                    
                    
                    
                    if (pool.exists(tx->GetHash())) {
                        ++already_there;
                    } else {
                        ++failed;
                    }
                }
            } else {
                ++expired;
            }