There was an unintentional fork on August 15, 2010, when "[an] attacker exploited [an] integer overflow bug that permitted an attacker to create several billion bitcoins". [source][0]
There was an unintentional fork on March 12, 2013 caused by previously disallowed number of tx inputs (?) as resolved by [BIP50][1].
There are a few projects working on this. One problem is key management and giving the app a connection to the blockchain. If you do key management in the webapp and read from the blockchain via a centralized API, thats not much of an improvement over existing systems. Ethereum core's solution to this is a special browser, but it is still under development. I'm working on a project[0] that takes this on, but is still a couple months out from a public beta. Its a bit of a hack but it manages a zero-install solution by having a sort of browser-in-browser that intercepts transaction signing requests and provides access to blockchain data. Can't wait to get it out there.
As a comparison, worth noting that the watch does not have GPS without the paired phone. So if you wanted to go out for a run and track the course, you would need to bring the phone.
Shouldn't we name names in this case? This behaviour should be part of the company's public image. Or does that just greatly increase the legal risk for the author?
There was an unintentional fork on March 12, 2013 caused by previously disallowed number of tx inputs (?) as resolved by [BIP50][1].
[0]: https://blog.blockchain.com/2016/02/26/a-brief-history-of-bi... [1]: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0050.mediawi...