[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?
}
/**
 * Check whether all of this transaction's input scripts succeed.
 *
 * This involves ECDSA signature checks so can be computationally intensive. This function should
 * only be called after the cheap sanity checks in CheckTxInputs passed.
 *
 * If pvChecks is not nullptr, script checks are pushed onto it instead of being performed inline. Any
 * script checks which are not necessary (eg due to script execution cache hits) are, obviously,
 * not pushed onto pvChecks/run.
 *
 * Setting cacheSigStore/cacheFullScriptStore to false will remove elements from the corresponding cache
 * which are matched. This is useful for checking blocks where we will likely never need the cache
 * entry again.
 *
 * Note that we may set state.reason to NOT_STANDARD for extra soft-fork flags in flags, block-checking
 * callers should probably reset it to CONSENSUS in such cases.
 *
 * Non-static (and re-declared) in src/test/txvalidationcache_tests.cpp
 */
bool CheckInputScripts(const CTransaction& tx, TxValidationState &state, const CCoinsViewCache &inputs, unsigned int flags, bool cacheSigStore, bool cacheFullScriptStore, PrecomputedTransactionData& txdata, std::vector<CScriptCheck> *pvChecks) EXCLUSIVE_LOCKS_REQUIRED(cs_main)
{
    if (tx.IsCoinBase()) return true;
    if (pvChecks) {
        pvChecks->reserve(tx.vin.size());
    }