[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?
{
    LOCK(::cs_main);
    assert(g_chainman.m_active_chainstate);
    return *g_chainman.m_active_chainstate;
}
CChain& ChainActive()
{
    LOCK(::cs_main);
    return ::ChainstateActive().m_chain;
}
/**
 * Mutex to guard access to validation specific variables, such as reading
 * or changing the chainstate.
 *
 * This may also need to be locked when updating the transaction pool, e.g. on
 * AcceptToMemoryPool. See CTxMemPool::cs comment for details.
 *
 * The transaction pool has a separate lock to allow reading from it and the
 * chainstate at the same time.
 */
RecursiveMutex cs_main;
CBlockIndex *pindexBestHeader = nullptr;
Mutex g_best_block_mutex;
std::condition_variable g_best_block_cv;
uint256 g_best_block;