[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?
const CScript &scriptSig = ptxTo->vin[nIn].scriptSig;
    const CScriptWitness *witness = &ptxTo->vin[nIn].scriptWitness;
    return VerifyScript(scriptSig, m_tx_out.scriptPubKey, witness, nFlags, CachingTransactionSignatureChecker(ptxTo, nIn, m_tx_out.nValue, cacheStore, *txdata), &error);
}
int GetSpendHeight(const CCoinsViewCache& inputs)
{
    LOCK(cs_main);
    CBlockIndex* pindexPrev = LookupBlockIndex(inputs.GetBestBlock());
    return pindexPrev->nHeight + 1;
}
static CuckooCache::cache<uint256, SignatureCacheHasher> g_scriptExecutionCache;
static CSHA256 g_scriptExecutionCacheHasher;
void InitScriptExecutionCache() {
    
    uint256 nonce = GetRandHash();
    
    
    
    g_scriptExecutionCacheHasher.Write(nonce.begin(), 32);
    g_scriptExecutionCacheHasher.Write(nonce.begin(), 32);
    
    
    size_t nMaxCacheSize = std::min(std::max((int64_t)0, gArgs.GetArg("-maxsigcachesize", DEFAULT_MAX_SIG_CACHE_SIZE) / 2), MAX_MAX_SIG_CACHE_SIZE) * ((size_t) 1 << 20);
    size_t nElems = g_scriptExecutionCache.setup_bytes(nMaxCacheSize);
    LogPrintf("Using %zu MiB out of %zu/2 requested for script execution cache, able to store %zu elements\n",
            (nElems*sizeof(uint256)) >>20, (nMaxCacheSize*2)>>20, nElems);