[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?
{
private:
    int bit;
public:
    explicit WarningBitsConditionChecker(int bitIn) : bit(bitIn) {}
    int64_t BeginTime(const Consensus::Params& params) const override { return 0; }
    int64_t EndTime(const Consensus::Params& params) const override { return std::numeric_limits<int64_t>::max(); }
    int Period(const Consensus::Params& params) const override { return params.nMinerConfirmationWindow; }
    int Threshold(const Consensus::Params& params) const override { return params.nRuleChangeActivationThreshold; }
    bool Condition(const CBlockIndex* pindex, const Consensus::Params& params) const override
    {
        return pindex->nHeight >= params.MinBIP9WarningHeight &&
               ((pindex->nVersion & VERSIONBITS_TOP_MASK) == VERSIONBITS_TOP_BITS) &&
               ((pindex->nVersion >> bit) & 1) != 0 &&
               ((ComputeBlockVersion(pindex->pprev, params) >> bit) & 1) == 0;
    }
};
static ThresholdConditionCache warningcache[VERSIONBITS_NUM_BITS] GUARDED_BY(cs_main);
static bool IsScriptWitnessEnabled(const Consensus::Params& params)